Shares of Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) were up more than 6% on Friday after Nelson Peltz disclosed a stake of less than 1% in the company.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that "John Glass, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, said Mr. Peltz could urge Starbucks to cut spending and use more licensing or franchising in opening locations. The money saved from that could go to buying back shares or a larger dividend for shareholders."

Perhaps. He very well could urge Starbucks to do that -- but take a quick look at the chart for the company that Mr. Peltz is chairman of -- Triarc (NYSE: TRY). The stock closed at $6.69 on Friday, after beginning 2007 at more than $20 per share. And how's the corporate governance over there? One company that engaged in a proxy fight with him blasted him with this:

Triarc received a corporate governance rating of 21.5, exceeding only 21.5% of all companies in the S&P SmallCap 600 and ranking it in the bottom quartile. Separately, Corporate Library gave Triarc an 'F' on overall board effectiveness -- the lowest possible rating.

Most likely Peltz's stake is a nonissue and will lead to no changes. I certainly don't buy that it's a rational reason for the stock to add more than half a billion dollars to its market cap in a single day.

If you had to guess which company has risen 31% since its IPO in November, hardwood flooring supplier Lumber Liquidators (NYSE: LL) probably wouldn't be it.

Lumber? Doesn't that have to do with housing and construction? And isn't construction in the toilet? But somehow Lumber Liquidators has defied its industry and the broader economy, posting a first quarter gain in sales of 24% with a 93% jump in earnings.

How did they pull that one off in what should be the toughest environment in decades? According to a profile in today's Wall Street Journal [subscription], the company "sells almost solely to consumers, not home builders; it constantly shops the competition . . . it keeps costs low by placing its stores in industrial and other low-rent areas; it buys virtually all of its hardwood directly from mills; and it largely uses commissions to pay employees."

The company has ambitious expansion plans and hey, if it can grow profitably in this environment, it is definitely worth a look. This is one home improvement stock I'll be keeping an eye on.

Back in April, eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY), which owns 28.4% of Craiglist, sued the company alleging that its board of directors (which consists only of founder Craig Newmark and CEO Jim Buckmaster) had attempted to dilute eBay's stake to just 10%.

Well, Craigslist wasn't having any of that. It filed a lawsuit accusing the company of interfering with its business operations, unfair competition by using its proprietary information, and infringing its trademark to attract visitors to eBay Web sites. The suit was filed yesterday in California Superior Court in San Francisco.

It's pretty rare that a victory in a $230 million lawsuit is only a moral victory, but Myspace, which is owned by News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), has won just such a case.

The company sued Sanford Wallace and Walter Rines for spamming the social networking site's users with phishing schemes and links to websites offering merchandise for sale or paid advertising. A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled in favor of MySpace after the con-men failed to show up for a hearing.

Why are the damages so high? CAN-SPAM, a 2003 law, entitled providers to $100 in damages for every spam message sent -- and the amount triples when the spam is sent "willfully and knowingly."

Perhaps this will send a message to would-be spammers that they shouldn't mess with MySpace. But the spammers are nowhere to be found, and it's hard to imagine that they have anything like $230 million to pay the judgment, or even the $4.7 million in attorneys fees that the judge awarded MySpace.

When the current CEO of a $500 million company sells 3.2 million shares of stock -- more than half of his holdings -- it's bound to raise some eyebrows.

So give True Religion Apparel (NASDAQ: TRLG) for not trying to slip that one through. Instead, the company took the unusual step of issuing a press release announcing the sales by founder Jeffrey Lubbell before the filing of the Form 4 with the SEC. Of course, it couldn't help using the press release as an opportunity at spin. Take a look:

Mr. Lubell sold these shares for two purposes: first, to fulfill an obligation due under the marital dissolution agreement with his former wife; and second, to continue his financial, estate and tax planning.

So that explains it! Except how much of it was to settle the marital dissolution agreement (Us poor folk call it divorce...) and how much of it was for "financial, estate and tax planning"?

And more importantly, what exactly is "financial, estate and tax planning"? Or better yet, what stock sale wouldn't fall under the umbrella of financial planning? Might he have sold the shares to build a house made of gold, buy an island, or take a vacation in outer space? Of course the shares were sold for financial purposes! Any transaction involving money is financial.

This press release looks like a pretty desperate attempt at damage control. It'll be interesting to see how the market responds.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that Senator Barack Obama's bid for the presidency will be endorsed by three former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen: George W. Bush appointee William Donaldson, Clinton appointee Arthur Levitt, and Reagan appointee David Ruder.

First of all: how many of you plan to factor in the endorsement of former heads of the SEC into your pick for president? That's what I thought.

But it's still interesting. Reality aside, Levitt and Donaldson are generally viewed as having been strong pro-investor advocates, mainly because they were good at pretending to take strong action against Wall Street malfeasance. Of course Enron's accounting was approved under Levitt's tenure but hey, nobody's perfect, right?

I'm not even sure why Levitt, Ruder, and Donaldson feel like they should endorse presidential candidates. Nobody cares! Barbra Streisand endorsed Hillary Clinton, and that's what really matters.

Remember the Laffer curve? The cornerstone of supply-side economics, it was a visual representation of the idea that tax revenue could in many cases be increased by lowering corporate tax rates. That was the idea behind Bush's $136 billion corporate tax cut in 2004 and, more recntly, he's pushed for another big cut. How's that working out for ya? The Wall Street Journal sums it up (subscription required): "With turmoil rocking financial markets and housing woes slowing the economy, corporate tax revenues are falling and leaving big holes in the federal budget."

Corporate income tax revenue for the first seven months of the fiscal year plummeted 14.7% while government outlays increased 7.3%. The budget deficit increased a stunning 88%.

What's the solution to this mess? That's right: send people a check for a few hundred bucks, hoping that they'll go buy a plasma television or a diamond-encrusted vibrator.

Does any of this make sense to anyone?

In 1988, billionaire investor-speculator George Soros wrote a book called The Alchemy of Finance. The book was well-received as a book about the ups and downs of life as a trader, but Soros's theory of reflexivity -- which he believes should replace conventional economic thinking -- was largely ignored.

For the past 20 years, Soros has continued to bang the drum on reflexivity, and most people have continued to ignore him, with some economists expressing tremendous disdain for his ideas.

A USA Today profile of this brilliant investor and philanthropist manages to make him look pretty pathetic: " [...] George Soros, now in his eighth decade and enjoying a personal fortune estimated at $9 billion, yearns to be seen as something other than a financial oracle or Democratic Party sugar daddy. The Hungarian émigré, who built a worldwide reputation by out-thinking markets, desperately wants to be acknowledged as a philosopher."

With a new book out, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crash of 2008 and What It Means, Soros is ever-hopeful that this time he will finally gain the recognition he deserves for the theory he believes to be his "life's work."

Having read a few of Mr. Soros's books, I doubt that his propensity for pontification will appeal to most readers. But the USA Today interview is definitely worth reading to get his thoughts on the current state of the market. He might be heckled as crazy and irrelevant, but I'm always interested in the market predictions of someone who made $9 billion making market predictions.

I and many others have been critical of Usana Health Sciences (NASDAQ: USNA) for a while now. Fraud fighter Barry Minkow has argued quite compellingly that the company's business model amounts to little more than a cleverly disguised pyramid scheme. How did he figure that out? He read the company's filings with the SEC.

Since Minkow's report, the stock has taken a beating: an auditor resigned, numerous credentials flaps were uncovered, the SEC opened (and closed, sadly) an investigation, and the company has repeatedly failed to meet the growth expectations of the Street.

Now founder Myron Wentz -- who owns half the stock through Gull Holdings -- is offering to take the company private at $26 per share. His reasoning? In the press release announcing the offer, Wentz explained, "Going private will provide significant cost savings and will allow USANA's talented management team, employees, and Associates to focus solely on providing industry-leading products and building USANA's strong Associate network without the pressures and distractions brought on by the public market."

Exactly! Going private will allow the company to operate its shady business model free from scrutiny. The selling of overpriced vitamins based on the promise of the potential to earn a six-figure income working from home has earned a lot of money for Usana. But having to disclose the business model in black and white has attracted the scorn of critics.

Now Usana can go back to what it does best: luring people in to a multi-level marketing business without having to disclose as much information about what a rip-off it is.

But before shareholders get too excited, they might want to take a look at Wentz's history of offering to buy the company. Back in 2002, Wentz made a similar offer (for a lot less money), but then Wentz later announced, "To allow our shareholders to benefit from any increased value, I have decided to terminate my current effort to acquire USANA's operating assets on the terms previously announced."

What a swell guy! This is starting to remind me of the whole Parlux (NASDAQ: PARL) buyout that never was fiasco.

Give Triarc (NYSE: TRY) CEO Roland Smith credit for forthrightness. Less than a month after the company announced it would acquire Wendy (NYSE: WEN)'s -- and well before the deal has even closed -- he wrote a letter to the company's employees saying in effect "Welcome to our conglomerate, you're fired!" to borrow a line from Isadore Barmash's book.

Well, not exactly. Triarc -- which is the parent company of Arby's -- isn't a conglomerate, and his letter had a bit more tact. He wrote: "There will be job cuts at Wendy's. I don't know how to put it any other way and say that I am acting with integrity. We will continue to be truthful with you about these as they come up."

It's a bold strategy. Given Wendy's struggles in recent years, he'll need all the help he can get in making this acquisition work, including strong employee morale. While immediate job cuts might help the bottom line, the impact on the company's remaining employees could make it far from a no-brainer.

Smith is betting that straight talk will pay off, but most employees would probably prefer job security. This letter may lead to a less than friendly welcome when Triarc takes control.

MBIA (NYSE: MBI) reported a larger than expected loss of $2.4 billion, reflecting an unrealized loss of $3.6 billion on its insured credit derivatives. And the stock went up.

Why? Portfolio.com summed it up this way: "Optimistic comments eclipse dreadful numbers in the bond insurer's release."

Well, isn't that just jolly. The problem is that MBIA has been making optimistic comments all along, trashing short seller William Ackman for bashing the company, while many of Ackman's predictions have turned out to be brilliantly prescient.

Back in February of 2005, MBIA said that it was "very optimistic." The stock has since declined from over $50 to under $10 as the company has reported big losses, come under the scrutiny of rating agencies, etc.

MBIA may very well be on the road to a remarkable turnaround -- I doubt it, but who knows? In the meantime, investors would do well, as always, to believe the numbers rather than the optimistic projections.

Former Barclaycard Marc Howells can relax a bit. Even though he was forced to quit on the last day of 2007, his comment that the company's results were "like Muslims - some were good, some were Shi'ite" is no longer the most offensive joke uttered by a corporate figure that ended up in the hands of the media in the past 6 months.

According to MarketWatch's David Weidner, Blackstone Group (NYSE: BX) head Stephen Schwarzman actually said the following in a speech to investors in Boca Raton:

"Trying to buy a mortgage bank in the midst of the subprime crisis was the equivalent of being a noodle salesman in Nagasaki when the atomic bomb went off. Not a lot of noodles left or even a person -- and that's what happened to us on this deal."

Wow. Just wow. Making jokes about the atomic bomb in a speech to investors is ... ambitious? Weidner points out that "the analogy probably went over pretty well at Blackstone's brand-spanking new Tokyo office," and then proceeds to compare Schwarzman to Marie Antoinette. Ouch.

I'm sure he'll have to issue a tail-between-the-legs apology, but most Blackstone Group shareholders are probably more worried about the billions of dollars in market value that have evaporated since the company's IPO. After hitting a high of $38 on June 22nd, the stock has settled in at right around $19.

Take-Two Interactive (NASDAQ: TTWO) needs to demonstrate the strength of its franchises other than Grand Theft Auto in order to fend off a bid from Electronic Arts (NASDAQ: ERTS), and this latest bit of news could help it do just that.

In a press release issued on Friday, the company announced that its 2K Games unit had "reached an agreement for BioShock, the universally acclaimed smash-hit video game, to be developed as a feature film by Universal Pictures." Gore Verbinski, director of the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, will produce and direct the film.

In a clear -- and completely justified -- swipe at critics who characterize the company as a one-trick pony, chairman Strauss Zelnick said that " Our ability to attract a major studio and unparalleled creative team speaks volumes about the strength of our BioShock franchise. It also demonstrates how Take-Two is delivering value based on our strategy of creating and owning our industry's most powerful intellectual property. "

This development certainly plays into Take-Two's argument that it can build value as a stand-alone company. As far as I can tell, none of EA's games have been transformed into Hollywood movies.

That said, Bioshock the movie sounds like a surefire flop to me.

With the housing crisis and less-than-robust economy making paupers out of people who thought they were living the American Dream a few years ago, investors are looking for ways to capitalize. Yesterday, I wrote about the strong business that self-storage companies are doing housing the belongings of former homeowners.

Today's Heard on the Street column (subscription required) in the Wall Street Journal looks at another obvious beneficiary of other people's misfortune: pawn shops and payday lenders. Shares of companies like First Cash Financial Services (NASDAQ: FCFS) and EZCORP (NASDAQ: EZPW) have run up nicely in recent years but have since pulled back as times have gotten tighter. Some analysts blame the aggressive expansion of pawn shops into payday loans, which lack any form of collateral.

"The earnings strength of payday loans is untested in a tough economic environment, when borrowers who lose their jobs default on the loans," according to The Journal. "And the business has come under increasing fire from state legislatures and consumer groups, which contend that the fees on these uncollateralized loans often amount to interest rates of as much as 400% a year."

The contradiction here is remarkable, and the Journal doesn't point it out: investors are worried that payday lenders are running the risk of defaults high enough to wipe out the profits from high-interest loans. Meanwhile regulators and consumer groups are accusing the companies of charging outrageous interest rates. But which is it? If the high "interest" on the loans isn't enough to overcome defaults, then the interest rates aren't high enough! Perhaps this explains why none of the big banks offer payday loans.

One of the most tired defenses against criticism of executive pay gone wild is the comment that athletes and pop stars earn outrageous sums of money, so why not executives? It's exactly that argument that Marc Hodak uses in a column for Forbes: "When rock stars make big bucks, we can look at the ticket and album sales and understand where it comes from. But when a CEO makes rock star income, we figure he must be scamming the shareholders."

Here's why that analogy doesn't work: when an owner of a sports team decides to spend $100 million on a superstar shortstop, that's his choice. It's his money. He owns the team, and he's entitled to do whatever he wants with it. Similarly, if 12-year old girls want to collectively spend $100 million on Menudo posters (And who can blame them!), that's their prerogative.

But what if the owner of a sports team was forced to spend money on players based on the whims of retired politicians and economics professors who serve on 15 other boards, collecting $100,000 from each company in exchange for going to a couple meetings a year and have no particular stake in the outcome of the investment? And what if these decision-makers could only be voted out once every few years, but the ownership of the team was so fragmented and most of the owners were so inattentive that it was nearly impossible to get them replaced?

That is, in effect, the situation we have in executive compensation. If the owners of public companies actually had any meaningful say in how much CEOs were paid, the sports star analogy would work. Since they don't, it doesn't. Executive pay is a classic principal-agent problem, and it's one that can only be solved through improved corporate governance.