Add Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (NASDAQ: SIRI) to the list of stocks Wall Street thinks are undervalued. You heard that right.

If anyone wants to take the advice of these analysts, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. Sirius, which reports earnings next week, is expected to lose 7 cents per share, down from 11 cents a year earlier, according to Thomson Financial. Revenue is due to rise more than 33% to $272.3 million. Their average price target is $3.86, higher than the $2.80 where the stock currently trades. The high target is a whopping $8.

I am still not convinced this is a good stock. Even if the XM Satellite Radio Inc. (NASDAQ: XMSR) merger happens, I don't see the company's prospects improving.

First of all, people aren't buying cars of any sort including those that come with satellite radio pre-installed. Moreover, Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) has a device called the iPod. Perhaps you have heard of it.

"Now that many new cars offer input jacks to broadcast media player content through car stereo systems, won't that compete with the commercial-free digital music that makes satellite radio so appealing?" asks Rick Aristotle Munarriz of the Motley Fool.

Good point. Keep in mind that I am a satellite radio subscriber. In fact, I am listening to Howard 100 over the Internet right now. I also like my iPod. I find Howard Stern as amusing as most people and enjoy the commercial-free music such as the Grateful Dead Channel. But I am not sure whether I am going to need both devices in the future.

Until its future is cleared up, investors should avoid satellite radio even if they are fans of Howard.

When it comes to big merger news, investors let the media get away with making sleazy deals with sources in exchange for access. The case of the aborted Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) -- Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) deal is no different.

Investors would be nauseated by the amount of butts that get kissed behind the scenes during these drawn-out sagas. Reporters suck up to companies, public relations people and investment bankers and vice versa. I saw some of this first hand when I worked for Bloomberg and would write about deals from time to time.

Since the number of people who actually know anything about an acquisition is fairly small, members of the media contort themselves into rhetorical knots to protect the identities of the people who are spilling the beans. That's why these types of stories are filled with phrases that no one would ever utter in daily conversation such as a "person familiar with the situation" or a "person familiar with (insert executive's or company's name) thinking"or my personal favorite "a person close to the company."

Shares of Sprint Nextel Corp. (NYSE: S) are rising on a Wall Street Journal (subscription required) report that Deutsche Telekom AG (NYSE: DT) is poised to make a bid for the wireless telecommunication company. If the report is accurate, Sprint's long suffering shareholders should do as the Steve Miller Band song suggests "take the money and run" because the deal may not happen.

For Sprint, though, this may be its only hope. Sprint shares have slumped almost 40% this year as the Overland Park Kansas-based company tried in vain to gain marketshare against larger rivals including Verizon and AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T). The commercials starring the company's affable CEO Daniel Hesse haven't helped much either. Remember when Hesse was named CEO last December, board member Irvine O. Hockaday Jr. remarked that Hesse "has the board's full support to take decisive actions necessary to improve our performance."

Does that mean a sale to the former German telecom monopoly? The deal makes sense in theory because combining Sprint and Deutsche Telekom would create the top wireless company with more than 82 million customers. Verizon, which is a joint venture between Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (NYSE: VOD) has 67.2 million customers while AT&T has about 71 million wireless subscribers.

But as Bloomberg News points out, analysts argue that integrating the Deutsche Telekom and Sprint Nextel networks wouldn't be easy. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security may not look kindly on a foreign company taking over a U.S. telecom provider for national security reasons, the news service notes.

Even so, the arguments for the merger are so compelling that it might be worth the risk.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

My son is an Elmo addict. He has Elmo clothes, Elmo books, and Elmo toys. He insists on listening to an Elmo CD whenever he rides in my car and watches the furry Muppet almost every day on "Sesame Street." Oh yeah, he calls his binky Elmo.

And you know what? This doesn't bother me.

Sesame Street, which has been on the air for about 40 years, is still a quality show. It teaches kids the alphabet, how to count and other important lessons in an entertaining manner. The show has some aspects of Saturday Night Live to it with clever bits like having Oscar the Grouch host something called the "Grouch News Network," which featured CNN's Anderson Cooper.

I realize that his Elmo fascination won't last. My son recently discovered Mickey Mouse on one of Walt Disney Co.'s (NYSE: DIS) cable channels. Eventually, Mickey will give way to Dora the Explorer and SpongeBob SquarePants on Viacom Inc.'s (NYSE: VIA) Nickelodeon.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

The heads of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC along with their corporate masters at Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) and General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) must be giggling with delight at the prospect of the Democratic presidential race continuing past the hotly contested race in Pennsylvania.

After all, controversy means more viewers, which of course means more advertising dollars. They probably wish that the Democrats would beat each other up in 30-second TV spots every year, but alas Americans elect a president every four years, which is probably a good thing for everybody. Still, the cable networks are going to ride this gravy train for as long as they can.

Like anything else in cable news, picking a winner in this battle of the brands depends on how you look at it. Fox, the home of Bill O'Reilly and Shepherd Smith, attracted 1.89 million viewers during Monday's prime time, the most of any network, according to Nielsen data cited by TVNewser. CNN attracted 1.03 million on its main network and 572,000 on its Headline News channel, while MSNBC was watched by 676,000.

Before conservatives start declaring Fox the top cable network yet again, remember that statistic does not represent the whole picture. Cable news advertisers are most interested in viewers aged 25 to 54 who are most likely to be interested in buying mutual funds and other products that they are shilling. That's where things get interesting.

Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM), whose huge profits have made it one of the most vilified companies in America, was brought down to earth today after posting disappointing earnings.

Net income at the world's largest oil company rose 17% to $10.9 billion, or $2.03 per share, from $9.3 billion, or $1.62 per share, a year earlier. Revenue rose 34% to $116.9 billion. Analysts had expected profit of $2.13 on revenue of $124.4 billion, according to Thomson Financial. Shares of the company fell.

Just because oil prices remain above $100 per barrel doesn't necessarily mean everything is going Exxon's way. For one thing, high oil prices resulted in "significantly lower" refining margins, which pushed down downstream earnings by $746 million to $1.16 billion. Lower margins also pushed down profit in Exxon's chemical business by $208 million to $1.03 billion. Moreover, spending on capital and exploration projects soared 30% to $5.5 billion "as we continued to actively invest in projects to bring additional crude oil, natural gas and finished products to market."

The problem is that's proving to be difficult. For one thing, production at the company's oil wells dropped as did natural gas production in the Middle East, The U.S., Canada, South America and Asia. This is happening as surging demand from the developing world is keeping oil prices at record levels. Exxon is "having trouble raising production, and that's not a good sign,'' Leeb Capital Management's Stephen Leeb told Bloomberg News.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

The battle between QVC and HSN is really about celebrity entrepreneurs.

QVC counts the likes of Joan Rivers and Marie Osmond in its stable of shills. Suzanne Somers and Susan Lucci hock their wares on HSN, which is owned by Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp (NASDAQ: IACI) conglomerate.

Somewhere around the 1980s or 1990s, Rivers lost her sense of shame and began opening up about everything, including her numerous plastic surgeries. Rivers still is hysterical. Typical is a recent blog post about Passover in which she joked that people eat Matzo (unleavened bread) "Because, you pig, you inherited your mother's big, fat thighs and you should lay off the carbs for at least one day every year."

Anyway, you just gotta love Rivers. She's survived her husband's suicide, the scorn of Johnny Carson and the ridicule of celebrities on the red carpet. Granted that I won't be buying products such as the Joan Rivers Lilly of the Valley Bee Pin, which according to the QVC website "shines with orange and green epoxy enamel and cream simulated pearls as the buds."

Sounds lovely, no?

The special committee set up by Rupert Murdoch to ensure the editorial independence of the Wall Street Journal is about as useful as a referee at a professional wrestling bout. The sad thing is that News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) is paying members of this committee $100,000 a year to let Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch do whatever he wants to do anyway.

A case in point is the abrupt resignation of Managing Editor Marcus Brauchli. The lackeys -- oh, I mean the special committee set up following the Dow Jones acquisition -- felt compelled Monday to issue a press release to show publicly that they were on the case. At least, that's what it tried to do.

"Although our charter does not directly envision a process for dealing with a resignation, Committee members expressed the view that learning of the Brauchli matter after the fact failed to meet the letter and the spirit of the agreement," the committee said in a statement. The committee met with Brauchli alone and was told that "his action was not the result of any problem with editorial interference or attempts to impose an ideological viewpoint. He insisted that News Corp. has been `scrupulous' about the integrity of the paper."

Yeah, right.

Murdoch has meddled in his media properties for decades. No special committee is going to stop his lust for power. Anyone who expected otherwise is either naive or deluded. Murdoch will have no inhibitions of messing with Newsday if he succeeds in buying Newsday from Sam Zell's Tribune Co. because beggars can't be choosers.

Earlier today, my colleague Douglas McIntyre argued that the Rockefeller family shouldn't "bite the hand that feeds" it at Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM), a company founded by ancestor John D. Rockefeller. I couldn't disagree more.

The family is advocating a series of proposals such as creating an independent chairman and pushing the world's largest oil company to be more environmentally friendly seem pretty sensible to me. First of all, corporate governance experts advocate separating the role of chairman and chief executive as a good idea for all companies, not just successful ones. This is a good way to prevent a company from falling under the control of an imperial CEO.

Also, I can't understand why McIntyre thinks that "developing new forms of alternative energy is essentially the job of smaller companies which will eventually compete with Exxon for business." Other oil companies including BP Plc. (NYSE: BP) are moving headlong into alternative energy. Even Exxon, which argues that wind, solar and biofuels will account for 2% of global energy demand by 2030, isn't totally opposed to the idea of alternatives to oil.

According to a statement on its Web site, "ExxonMobil is taking to address the risk of climate change. These included working to improve energy efficiency and fuel economy, and groundbreaking research into low-emissions technologies." The company, of course, argues that the world will need petroleum-based energy for some time to come.

Finally, the idea that shareholders should just sit back and let management do whatever it wants couldn't be more wrong. Companies are owned by shareholders and are supposed to be working in their best interests. Despite record profits, Exxon shares have barely budged this year. If the Rockefellers think the company can do better, the company should at least hear them out.

Investors don't know what to make of Time Warner Inc.'s (NYSE: TWX) results.

First, shares rose this morning as investors gave a thumbs up to Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes' plan to dispose of the media conglomerate's cable television business. Then, they fell after the earnings conference call. Perhaps investors were expecting news on a deal for AOL. Otherwise, the parent of CNN, Time magazine and Warner Brothers posted mediocre quarterly results (pdf).

"We've decided that a complete structural separation of Time Warner Cable Inc. (NYSE: TWC), under the right circumstances, is in the best interests of both companies' shareholders, Bewkes said in the earnings release. "We're working hard on an agreement with Time Warner Cable, which we expect to finalize soon."

Consumers these days are so lacking in confidence that all the therapy in the world probably couldn't help them. The housing market is in a tailspin, commodities are soaring and gas prices are nearing $4 a gallon. It is against this backdrop that Procter & Gamble Co. (NYSE: PG) reported better-than-expected first quarter results.

Profit rose to $2.71 billion, or 82 cents per share, compared with $2.51 billion, or 74 cents per share, a year ago. Revenue rose 9% to $20.46 billion from $18.69 billion last year. The Cincinnati-based company was expected to earn 81 cents on revenue of $21.44 billion, according to Thomson Financial.

"P&G delivered strong results in-line with long-term targets in a challenging economic and competitive environment with broad-based sales and share growth, earnings growth and overhead cost improvement," said Chief Executive AG Lafley in the earnings release.

Shares of the maker of Tide (my favorite detergent) and Pampers (our family's preferred diaper for my son) have slumped more than 10% this year under-performing rivals including Church & Dwight Co. (NYSE: CHD) and Colgate-Palmolive Co. (NYSE: CL). Uniliver Plc. (NYSE: UL) has fared slightly worse than P&G.

Shares of CBS Corp. (NYSE: CBS) are trading up this morning after the corporate home of CSI, Two and a Half Men and Katie Couric, reported better-than-expected first quarter results.

Net income was $244.3 million, or 36 cents per share, up 14% from $213.5 million, or 28 cents, the New York-based company said in its earnings release. Revenue was little changed at $3.65 billion. The results beat Wall Street estimates of profit of 33 cents on sales of $3.55 billion.

Strength in the company's Television and Outdoor businesses overcame weaknesses in the Radio and Publishing divisions. The results were bolstered by an 85% gain in television licensing fees which were helped by higher domestic and international syndication sales. Rate increases and subscriber growth at Showtime Networks and CBS College Sports Network boosted affiliate revenues by 6%. The company also boosted its dividend by 8% to 27 cents per share.

Stanford Group analyst Fred Moran had an optimistic take on the results.

"It shows CBS is holding its own despite the recessionary advertising environment in the U.S," he told Bloomberg News. "The yearly dividend is now a 5 percent yield, and it's one of the cheapest stocks in the media group.''

Another day. Another merger of two struggling airlines.

This time it''s UAL Corp.'s (NYSE: UAUA) United Airlines and US Airways Inc. (NYSE: LCC), which together lost more than $773 million in the first quarter are reportedly in are "advanced" merger talks, two sources familiar with the situation told The Associated Press. These "sources" may be public relations people who are leaking details of the deal at the direction of the investment bankers and the companies themselves.

Wall Street is reacting positively to the news sending shares of US Airways in mid-afternoon trading. I am not so sure a celebration is in order. For one thing, as Reuters and the Associated Press both have noted this is a marriage of necessity.

"The discussions intensified over the weekend after Continental Airlines Inc, which had been in negotiations with United, pulled out to explore a potential marketing alliance with AMR Corp's American Airlines and British Airways Plc," according to Reuters.

The combined company would have to compete against the combined Delta Airlines Inc. (NYSE: DAL) and Northwest Airlines Corp. (NYSE: NWA) which will create the largest airline.

Airline mergers have had such a lousy track record, what makes people think these will be any different?

Shares of Hershey Co. (NYSE: HSY) have jumped more than 6% on the news of the $23 billion takeover of Wm. J. Wrigley Co. (NYSE: WWY) by Mars Inc. and Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A) as investors bet that the maker of the eponymous chocolate bar won't stay independent for long.

Hershey, though, is a basket case thanks to soaring commodity costs and hopefully the growing interest in healthier eating. That will heighten the pressure on Hershey management to do a deal with Cadbury Schweppes Plc. or find another sugar daddy (pun intended).

The case for a merger between Cadbury and Hershey are pretty compelling as Reuters notes.

"The deal would have clear strategic logic, as Cadbury, the world's biggest confectionery group, lacks presence in the U.S. chocolate market, while Hershey is looking to expand overseas," according to the news service.

During the first quarter earnings conference call, Chief Executive David West sounded upbeat, saying the company was "making progress, while it is slower than we would like, we do see the initial signs of improving marketplace trends." He has high hopes for new products such as the Hershey Bliss. Investors, though, may not be patient.

The Hershey Trust Co., the chocolate company's largest shareholder, has resisted buyout offers in the past from Wrigley and has vowed to keep the company independent. You have to figure that the trust's board will change its tune at the right price.

Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) Chief Executive Alan Mullaly has a friend in cantankerous billionaire Kirk Kerkorian.

Kerkorian, who was Chrysler's largest shareholder before the company was acquired by Daimler, is snapping up shares in the automaker, which recently posted an unexpected $100 million first quarter profit. Kerkorian's Tracinda Corp. owns a 4.7% position in Ford and plans to offer to buy as much as 20 million shares at a 13% premium to Friday's close, according to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required).

"Tracinda has been following Ford closely since the company released its fourth quarter 2007 results which indicated that Ford's management was starting to achieve highly meaningful traction in its turnaround efforts," the company said in a statement. "Last week this was reinforced by Ford's first quarter 2008 results, achieved despite the difficult U.S. economic environment. Tracinda believes that Ford management under the leadership of Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally will continue to show significant improvements in its results going forward."

At least that's how Kerkorian feels now.