TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says the guys at the top don't know what they're doing, and it shows.

AIG's (NYSE: AIG) (Cramer's Take) making everyone's life difficult today. That's in part because AIG had been the biggest proponent of "super senior," meaning they repeatedly said that their collateralized debt obligation (CDO) exposure was of the kind that was intelligent, measured and thoughtful. They talked endlessly about how their due diligence made the difference and that unlike all of the other buyers, they kicked the tires three times and never bought the plain ol' CDOs. Then they brought in professors from Wharton to be sure that even if all heck broke loose and they were being too aggressive, they would be hedged.

They also were the first to give you the percentages of how much could go bad and that even in the worst-case scenario, they were overcapitalized. And, most important, they were insurers, no need to mark to market, they can play it all out.

Plus, they touted their own struggles. They made the point that because of the turmoil at the top, they hadn't bought any bad stuff and stopped buying residential real estate products after 2005. What they did buy -- they assured us in that big teach-in dog-and-pony show in December -- was the extra-special nature of their particular buys and that, unlike everyone else, risk officers scrutinized every single piece of paper that went into their super senior insurance, meaning only the top-top part of a CDO-squared, the part where everything had to default ahead of it; they made a point of how impossible that would be.

Last month I wrote about the resilience of golf in the face of a struggling market for many other consumer product companies. But when struggling golf shaft maker Aldila (NASDAQ: ALDA) announced an 18% decline in first quarter sales of its shafts, the company was quick to blame the economy.

"A weakening economy and decreased industry retail sales compared to last year impacted our sales," said Mr. Peter R. Mathewson, Chairman of the Board and CEO. "Market participants appear to be taking a cautious approach to 2008. While we are disappointed with our sales we did remain profitable and we believe we are well positioned for the back half of the year. Production for new programs in which we will participate should begin during the late third quarter and should be in full swing during the fourth quarter," Mr. Mathewson said.

In reaction to surging fuel costs, several major airlines announced today that they were raising their fares in order to recoup some of their rapidly increasing flying costs.

The increase this time around is $20 and effects passengers traveling on UAL Corporation (NASDAQ: UAUA), Delta Air Lines, Inc. (NYSE: DAL), and AMR Corporation (NYSE: AMR)'s American Airlines. The $20 jump in prices will be added to the airline's fuel surcharges, and consequently, these charges are now running at $130 round trip on most flights that you will book through the airlines.

The current rate hike was first initiated by Delta, and marks the second time in just over a week that the airline has been forced to raise fares in order to combat record high fuel costs. Times are definitely tough for airlines, and they are doing everything they can to combat fuel prices, but regardless of the rate increases most analysts are still expecting to see huge losses this year from most, if not all, airline carriers.

Someone had to pay for the fact that Moody's (NYSE: MCO) is being blamed for not doing a better job predicting the mortgage securities crisis. The reasoning is that the credit ratings agency was too close with some of the companies that issued the paper and did not look hard enough at how the system might come apart in a subprime lending meltdown.

As usual, it is not the CEO who is leaving. Moody's is dumping its president, a sign that the company is contrite, sees the error of its ways, and wants to do better. According to The Wall Street Journal Brian Clarkson's departure "effective by July, marks the highest-profile casualty to date in the controversy over the complicity of credit-rating firms in the subprime meltdown."

Of course, Mr. Clarkson did not act alone. Moody's has scores of analysts who looked at the data on the subprime market. Clarkson was at the top of the pyramid. Of course, the company's CEO was even more so.

The great tradition in American management is that blame should always fall to one person, or a small group of people, when something significant goes off-track at a company. The thinking is usually muddled. Responsibility almost always extends over a wider number of persons.

But, having Clarkson leave is good window dressing.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Merrill Lynch and Co., Inc. (NYSE: MER) CEO John Thain said today that the risk in the housing market is "much lower" than it has been recently as the credit crisis in the U.S. is "getting better." Leave it to the leader of a company which has written off over $30 billion in mortgage lending investment to make this claim. But the thing is, could he be right?

Although Thain said "economic pressure" will remain high over the next year, he expressed confidence that the end of the housing bubble, which is still popping in many parts of the country, is now in sight. Thain also indicated that food prices and shortages as well as higher unemployment will continue to have an impact on the U.S. economy. Of course Merrill has had three quarters of disastrous results like other large investment banks, and the company is still toiling with the idiocy of incredibly risky investments that have left it weakened financially.

Even if Thain had been hired by Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C) last year, he'd be in the same mess in the same industry. I'm not sure what "much lower" risk in the housing market means, although he's probably talking about his company's reduced exposure to those SIVs and other vehicles from the Flintstone era that start off fast before the wheels fall off.

I hope Thain is correct in his assessments, and Merrill Shareholders are probably wanting the same thing, just much more badly than myself.

Countrywide (NYSE:CFC) got called before Congress. All of the elected officials and their staff members wanted to know how the mortgage firm screwed up by lending people without the resources money to buy homes. Was there fraud involved? Did brokers inflate buyers' salaries? Did they take down any pertinent information at all?

As would be expected, Countrywide said it had not done anything illegal. All that happened was that its people made a few mistakes. All that has been fixed and everything is fine.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Countrywide "told a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee Tuesday that the company is taking steps to address concerns that misconduct in bankruptcy proceedings by mortgage companies is exacerbating the nation's foreclosure crisis." In other words, the company gave out loans which people could not pay and then beat them up with fees which they could hardly afford when they got behind on payments.

The FBI and a number of other agencies looking into Countrywide's practices. They obviously are not willing to settle for the company's comments before Congress. These investigators think that the mortgage operation knew a great deal about what it was doing and was doing it on purpose to make more money.

Countrywide can testify all it wants. There is no poll of home buyers, federal investigators. or Congressmen that will show anything other than the belief that the company is not telling the truth. Not even close.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com and author of the Ten Stocks Under $10 letter.

It wasn't that long ago that Wall Street was in love with Crocs, Inc (NASDAQ: CROX), the maker of the trendy slippers that took the world by storm last year. After going on a tear for most of 2007, the stock started to break down last November, and has been in a tail spin for the past 5 months.

The company is going to be reporting its first quarter numbers tomorrow after the market close, and all signs are pointing to yet another troublesome quarter for the company. Earnings.com is showing Wall Street estimates of 10 cents a share, but that number does not really hold too much water after the company announced a much weaker forecast last month in its preliminary release.

Last month, CROX shocked Wall Street when it said that it expected to see a 5 cent per share loss in the quarter, and revenues falling somewhere between $195 and $200 million. After that news came out, the already troubled stock took a serious nose dive, and gave up around 40% of its value.

So shareholders of Aflac (NYSE: AFL) had a really cool idea: wouldn't it be cool if the owners of the company got to have some say in how the top employees at the company were compensated?

I know: blasphemy. But on Monday the company best known for a duck voiced by Gilbert Gottfried became the first company to give its shareholders a say on pay. The result? A big fat nothing. More than 93% of shareholders approved of the $11.96 million compensation package that CEO Daniel P. Amos received for 2007. During Mr. Amos' 18-years at the helm, the stock has appreciated more than 3,000%. So here's a guy who deserves his big payday.

Amazingly, most shareholder resolutions suggesting say-on-pay proposals have been opposed by management and voted down by large institutional shareholders. It's hard to understand given that the votes are simply advisory. Why shouldn't the board hear how shareholders feel about the work of the compensation committee?

But with 93% of voters approving the CEO's package, the say on pay deal at Aflac changes nothing, which is not surprising. Companies that have strong enough corporate governance and shareholders awake enough to demand a say on pay are not likely to suffer from egregious pay problems. The executive compensation outhouses like Countrywide Financial (NYSE: CFC) would never have votes like this.

It was not enough that Citigroup (NYSE: C)'s CEO Vikram Pandit sold the bank a hedge fund business which lost most of it value, now he is being accused of being too slow in coming to decisions and making it difficult to turn the bank around. Investors can always hope he will be pushed out. It would probably add $5 to Citi's share price.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Even executives who praise his cautious, deliberative approach express concern Mr. Pandit is taking too long to make decisions." Add to that the concern that Pandit has not disclosed his longer-term plan for the business.

The attacks on Pandit appear to be lead by the founder of the modern Citi, Sandy Weill. The deal-maker created the complex company and would probably be best to keep his thoughts to himself. He bears at least as much responsibility for Citi's problems as his hand-picked successor Chuck Prince.

None of that lets Pandit off the hook. He has made no real attempt to streamline the company by selling off any major assets. Is Citi a stock broker though Smith Barney, an investment bank, a consumer bank, or a corporate lender? As Warren Buffett recently pointed out, some large financial companies have become too complex to run. Pandit needs to sell-off some assets and focus the firm on two or three core operations.

Right now, it looks like Citi may have three bad CEOs in row.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Tomorrow afternoon Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS) will be answering Wall Street's questions about the strength of its US amusement parks when it reports its second quarter earnings.

The last time that Disney reported earnings was February 5, when the company topped analysts' estimates of 52 cents per share by a whopping 11 cents.

This time, analysts expect earnings of 51 cents a share on sales of $8.51 billion, compared with 43 cents and revenue of $8.07 billion a year earlier. Sales are expected to decline year-over-year as a result of the weak market conditions hurting Disney's theme parks, particularly its Walt Disney World in Florida.

A new report from Ned Davis Research shows that companies that consistently raise their dividends provide the strongest returns for investors over the long run.

But I'm still not a fan of dividends: They're incredibly inefficient when it comes to tax-season, making share buybacks far superior as a means of returning value to shareholders of an undervalued stock -- and if the stock isn't undervalued, why own it in the first place? It's my belief that shareholders in a company should always prefer buybacks to dividends -- if you'd rather pay a big tax to receive cash instead of receiving a larger stake in the company, why do you own the stock in first place?

The Wall Street Journal reports on the study: "Since 1972, members of the Standard and Poor's 500-stock index that consistently increased their payouts, or started making them, rewarded shareholders with a yearly average 10.4% total return (stock-price appreciation plus dividends). Those that didn't boost dividends clocked 8.2%. Most of the difference came from superior stock performance." (emphasis added)

Think about it: Companies that are able to boost their dividends consistently are also, generally (A) increasing their profits and (B) not blowing their cash flow on ill-advised acquisitions. Both of these would seem to be, I believe, much more strongly correlated with outstanding returns than returning cash to shareholders with taxes.

My perennial near-hero Mark Cuban recently examined the issue of CEO pay, over on his handy soapbox, The Blog Maverick. In his blog post titled "My 2 Cents on CEO Pay," Mr. Cuban outlined his position on the subject and tossed some ideas around. The post makes a good read, and the author makes some good points. Additionally, the 65 or so comments by the readers are well worth the time to cruise them.

I'd like to discuss and expand upon an idea someone presented in addition to those discussed by Mark Cuban. It's actually a reverse scenario to what Mr. Cuban describes as moving chief executive officers into "the cash zone." In the Cuban scenario, the CEO would be paid cash, without additional compensation through stock grants, in order to make their pay more tangible and visible as a business expenditure. Mr. Cuban also asserts that this might more closely align CEO compensation with company performance. It's an admirable idea, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

In this alternate approach, we give the CEO all the stock certificates he or she can swallow. Then we provide an equal number to be divided among all other employees of the company. In this manner of compensation, all employees have their hands on the ball. The concept of laboring to line the pockets of someone else with gold would become extinct. The CEO would suddenly become a real person in the eyes of the rank-and-file laborers. Likewise, the labor force would be inextricably linked to the financial success of the CEO. If labor is to share the risk, they should also share the reward.

A further stop-gap to this scenario would be if upper management deemed that labor cuts were needed to create profitability, or for any reason other than "cause," they and the CEO would be required to surrender share holdings equal to the holdings of the displaced workers. These surrendered shares would then be distributed to the pink-slipped workforce members, with the company paying all applicable taxes on the transfer. Additionally, no party would be allowed to liquidate more than 5% of their holdings in any one year, as long as they were employed by the company, and upper management would be required to maintain holdings at least equal to those of the workforce.

I know it's a lofty scenario, but it sure would beat the heck out of what we have going on now.

Vikram S. Pandit, the CEO of Citigroup (NYSE: C), got his start at the big bank by selling them his hedge fund business, Old Lane. A few months after the transaction, Pandit go the top job, but the business he sold Citi is in trouble. How humiliating.

According to The New York Times, "Citigroup said late Friday that it was planning to restructure Old Lane after 'substantially all' its outside investors withdrew their money." The bank bought Pandit's company for $800 million.

Another black eye for the Citigroup board? Absolutely. How can the governance body of a financial firm not look at the key asset that its top CEO candidate brought to the company?

While the news makes Pandit look bad, it makes the Citi board look like boobs. It is essentially the same board that let Chuck Prince stay on too long while he screwed up the bank and let it invest in mortgage-backed paper. Now it has picked a CEO who cannot even do a good job of managing his own investors' money.

Douglas A McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

I'm tired of reading press releases filled with CEO-speak: meaningless phrases, extra words, and a preference for the convoluted over the substantive. I would much prefer that corporate publicists write press releases in Ebonics. Just glancing through Google News, here are some recent examples of my least favorite phrase, "going forward," in action:

"Going forward we maintain our focus in "mission-critical" markets yet remain diversified across the intelligence and DoD community."

"One, let's talk about revenue because that's where we're going to live or die going forward."

Within the last day, Google News shows 17,324 stories with this phrase.

But let's analyze this: what exactly does it mean to say "going forward?" It means that the company is talking about what it hopes to do in the future -- as opposed to what it hopes to do in the past? Fortis CEO Stan Marshall recently said in a press release that "The significant consolidated capital expenditure program, planned at more than $4 billion over the next five years, is expected to drive earnings growth going forward."

But why do you need to say going forward? Surely the $4 billion being spent over the next 5 years will not drive past earnings growth! Not even Enron got that creative. Saying "going forward" is redundant.

And it isn't just CEOs who are using this phrase. New York Post sportswriter Phil Mushnick wrote about how the term has entered the sports coaches' vernacular:

It's no longer enough to regard talk about the future as talk about the future. Now you have to double-dip it, just in case talk about what might happen tomorrow can be confused with talk about what might happen yesterday ... "Going forward, wanna play golf, tomorrow?" "Going forward, yes. But isn't it supposed to rain, tomorrow, going forward?" "Going forward, it might. I'll call you in the morning, going forward." "Good. Going forward, I look forward to hearing from you. Have a nice day, going forward."

Next press release I see that has the phrase "going forward," I'm shorting the stock. A company that resorts to trite and redundant cliches can't have great prospects, going forward.

As one who was greatly embarrassed by making a premature recommendation (being kind) that investors give consideration to acquiring shares in IndyMac Bancorp (NYSE: IMB) prior to its dramatic collapse; I can ill afford to suggest that folks jump in now. However, I might just do that.

Yesterday IndyMac jumped about 20% as it was reported that CEO says IndyMac has 'turned a corner' finishing the day at $3.97 a share -- still a long way from its 52-week high of $37.50. "Given the decline in our stock price, some people have questioned IndyMac's survivability in the current environment," Chief Executive Michael Perry said. "I am here to tell you that I believe we have turned a corner and that our business is improving. We are now achieving profitability with this new production model, with all of our nine regional wholesale centers and 104 of our 152 retail lending branches being profitable in March," Perry said.

The message is clear from the top, with negative earnings and corresponding negative P/E ratio just about any turnaround would make this stock cheap. Perry is correct that the stock is priced for failure. What should the price be if Perry gets IMB back to profitability by the end of the year? A lot more than it is now.

The stock moved way up at the opening bell this morning trading to $4.20, so there are a lot of investors who share my view ... and then it traded down, so then again...

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money. Disclosure: I own shares of IMB.