Blogging for AOL has been an interesting experience over the last few years. For me it is one of those unplanned surprising things that pop up on life's journey every so often. For the most part it has been a rewarding experience. I have had to become a lot more thick skinned when receiving harsh and even crude comments from readers.

One of the great things has been the 'pen pals' I have made around the world. People that have taken to my stories and regularly add their insights. The dialogue makes it more informative and the immediacy somehow makes it more personal and real.

Just this morning I received a note from Dan, a frequent participant in the BloggingStocks.com dialogue. He had noticed that one of my colleagues Peter Cohan had picked up my infrastructure theme lately and was not able to find my stories about the subject from earlier in the year.

I think this is one of the themes that Peter and I could write about non-stop and it would not be getting enough attention. It is first and foremost about putting people to work doing things that the nation needs done anyway. If we have to run the printing presses let it be for things that last 80 to 100 years not 2 to 3. The following stories will illuminate the subject as to my views in more detail.

Thanks for writing Dan. I hope you and others will continue to comment and try and wake up our elected officials. I started banging this gong in February. Maybe someone in Washington will do something before next February.

• Suburban slums -- city centers being revitalized
• Fund roads & bridges NOT mad money stimulus
• Serious Money: Stimulate productivity not consumption
• Should Feds stimulate or stabilize; is there a difference?
• Re-think new stimulus package? Push infrastructure!

I think that the infrastructure story will continue to be a major theme next year and for many years to come. My stories have discussed roads, bridges, tunnels, highways and the like but future stories will be about water. In using the the picture above contributed by editor and writer Sarah Gilbert, I want to drive home the point that we all have expectations that our simplest needs will be met. That is not going to be so, if we do not plan for the future.

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.

A former senior manager at CB Richard Ellis Group (NYSE: CBG) in Southern California, now a partner at a private real estate company where I am an investor said to me this week that the stock market was just "white collar gambling".

This is a relatively common thought from Main Street and when my colleague Ron, made the comment it was hard to argue that it is not.

It certainly looks like gambling when you consider how momentum day traders place their bets, or options traders, or commodities traders -- and the past few years -- CEO's of major corporations.

I certainly was playing this theme up when I posted The great leadership disconnect: I bet the farm and you lose in September.

Earlier in the week Ron had brought up the fact that CBG stock had dropped from over $40 per share to under $4 and it seemed like it was bound to get back sometime in the foreseeable future for a huge gain. The following is the three year chart.

Ron is a smart real estate guy but he is not a stock market aficionado. He believed the risk / reward opportunity seemed like a no brain-er (not that he was going to invest). The first problem is that idea of the foreseeable future. I think the market is not foreseeing much lately. Most things seem quite cloudy indeed.

Actually I could not help but ponder the matter because, coincidentally, I was at a business breakfast the following morning where the speaker was a manager with responsibility for CBG's Asian portfolio investments. When Ron brought up the subject originally I responded that I did not follow the stock, but that it did not have to return to it's previous glory to achieve a great return on investment. Suppose it took two years to go from $4 per share to $6 or $7. Most anyone would be delighted with a 25%+ annualized return.

As it turned out, I saw my associate later that day and he pointed out that CBG had jumped 40% from the day before. WOW, some of the day gamblers, I mean traders, must have made a killing. Of course that is only if they were on the right side of the deal, and sold in time.

CBG closed Friday at $4.84, down 10% and has been volatile lately as the chart and the stocks recent moves indicate. It has a beta of just under 2 which means that it moves at twice the rate of the broader market.

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 do not own any shares of CBG. I do not do any day trading.

I just had to share this tidbit from Barrons which some of you may have read but Barrons is expensive, so many have not. For those of you that missed it or did not see it elsewhere here is an anonymous quote summing up this years election: It pits a candidate who should have been president eight years ago against a candidate who should be president eight years from now.

Credit is due Alan Abelson (September 1, 2008) and in turn Tom Gallagher of ISI Group for sharing with him.

Ah yes, timing, is so very important. If you were buying stocks last July you probably were getting into the market too late as it hit its highs and right before optimism slammed its big grin smack into a brick wall -- the demise of housing and the subprime market, derivitives with "Triple A" ratings and all. This was rapidly followed by billions and billions of dollars of mark-to-market write downs by most major finanical institutions that left the whole finanical world in dire straights.

This included the collapse of Bear Stearns early on and the current basket cases Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) as discussed by my colleague Peter Cohan yesterday.

So if last July 2007 was a bad time to get into the market at its highs, was this past July 2008 also a bad time to get into the market at its recent lows? Perhaps we will not know until next July 2009 when either the slow starter John McCain or early riser Barrack Obama occupy the White House and the first 100 days (that timing thing again) are old news.

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.

Giving some thought to what in the world Mr. Gramm was thinking about (or not), it seems to me that his angst last week about Americans being a bunch of whiners was quite self referential. He obviously has lost his sense of balance and is spending too much time with the country club crowd to realize that some folks are feeling true pain.

Unless he is getting free gas or his limousine driver is not speaking with him then how could he have missed the fact that everyone in our country has seen a rapid and significant rise in prices. Ask anyone driving a truck for a living, just as a sampling. I would not consider their plight frivolous.

For some reason he has also missed the fact that all three of our major automobile manufacturers Ford Motor (NYSE: F), General Motors (NYSE: GM), and Chrysler (now privately held) are teetering on bankruptcy.

I have been fortunate enough to have traveled to the four corners of the United States, Alaska and Hawaii and I would actually say we tend to be overly optimistic at times in the US. By comparison many of the 25 countries I have had the chance to visit can be some what negative. I would place us somewhere in the middle.

Most people in the United States and for sure shareholders of losing companies have been railing against executive pay for many years. It is generally agreed the salaries, bonuses, stock options, deferred compensation, and retirement packages have become ridiculous and do not reflect anything other then the "good ol' boy network" operating at its worst.

Compensation committees substantiate their decisions in a fashion that outlines plausible deniability not merit, value or truth. They do not reflect shareholders, employees, or customers best interest. They reflect a tight knit group that has to pay and pay big so that they can get theirs in the next round.

This brings me to the National Basketball Association and its use of the salary cap. We just witnessed an NBA finals where the better team won (Boston Celtics in six games) and that is the nature of the game. It's five on five, the best player does not take every shot and the best player cannot defend the other team by himself.

A few days ago I posted Chasing Value: Valero -- when is a downgrade an upgrade? and since then I have become even more disturbed with our government and the stock analysts, as well as the companies they represent. Eitan Bernstein, an analyst with Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co downgraded his expectations for the major oil refiners Wednesday and lowered his price target for Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO) from $77 to $65.

How can this be? The stock was trading around $40 per share and closed Friday at $39.96. As a shareholder who has watched this stock go down, any signs of optimism have to be welcome I suppose, but what in the world is this guy saying. He is saying he has concerns about the sector, but believes VLO will be 61.5% higher this time next year any way!

This makes no sense. He can't be too concerned, can he? If you believed him you would buy all the VLO shares you could get hold of -- and so would he! Maybe he did? Or maybe he is trying to pump up the stock to help a big client? Or maybe he is clueless and does not know what he is talking about? What might his e-mails reveal?

Anyone can predict anything, and they have a right to be an idiot, but what responsibility does he have to eat his own cooking? VLO started the year near a high that is between Bernstein's old and new projections, and I for one have hopes of it rebounding, but I do not have the level of certainty to broadcast such an exact figure. What is the purpose?

The change in his projections of 15.5% is indicative of the silliness of this analysis. We have seen this before and will see it again ... so buyer beware.

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 currently own shares of VLO.

.

Regular readers know that I enjoy Barron's Weekly (subscription required) one of the best business journals around and that it has provoked some of my better investment ideas. However, even Barron's can fall prey to bad or incomplete reporting, (as if there were a difference), as they benefit from market activity and can stretch an idea too far, becoming all too common.

Barron's incomplete and common story was in the June 9, 2008 issue titled "Timing is Everything". What I find common, and thus objectionable, is the fact that they choose to tout Appel Asset Management's like so many brokerage houses do numerous funds (for the fees), ignoring basic tidbits like said fees, and taxes. The Appels seem to do an admirable job for their investors but they do not beat the indices, so who cares?

Their simple strategy is to invest in the two broadly based hot ETF's, counting on momentum lasting more than one quarter, and switch them out each quarter. This they claim takes only an hour of work every three months, how lovely. In the story they state "From 1979 through 2007, Marvin Appel would have (emphasis mine) returned 16% a year, before fees, better than the 15% a year performance of the Russell 2000 Value Index". They also leave out how long the approach has actually been in place.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) led by commissioner David Stern, Esq. has been a spectacular financial success over the past two decades. Even after Michael Jordan hung up his jersey and people wondered aloud how he could be replaced, the league hardly missed a beat.

Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Steve Nash, Dwayne Wade, Kevin Garnet, Amare Stoudamire, and this year Chris Paul and Dwight Howard have entered the pantheon of NBA superstars adding plenty of excitement. By the time Jordan retired it was over due.

While the NBA has been making money it has been losing its luster in other regards. The brawls, bad calls, and official Donaghy's integrity fall have only served to force Stern to earn his pay working over time to repair the damage.

The current uproar about the officiating is not the result of criminal activity, or lack of effort or skill, or poor eye sight, or planned manipulation. What it is about is a lack of clarity and consistency in the game. No other legitimate professional sport ignores its own rules as blatantly as the NBA.

The most serious are the definitions of traveling or carrying. The words in the book have not changed they are just ignored. I watched Tim Duncan walk from the top of the key taking three long and obvious strides to the hoop and dunk it without a call. Guys spin to the hoop changing their pivot foot all the time. Sure it makes the play fun but it makes the game a sham at times also. It also feeds the misrepresentation of the players as "unruly".

The outcome of the Belmont Stakes where Big Brown came in last instead of first is just one more example of the difficulty one has in making predictions. I know little about horse racing, and the only thing I know about the Triple Crown is that there has not been a winner in 30 years (and counting). As irony would have it, the winner of the Belmont was the 38-to-1 long shot Da Tara that went wire to wire.

This event stands out in my mind because I am asked to predict future events on a regular basis (whether it makes sense or not), and because I am in the middle of reading The Black Swan about randomness and uncertainty by epistemologist Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I highly recommend the book to fellow investors and business leaders interested in getting some perspective on risk and the many fallacies we all overlook.

The number of variables that can affect a specific outcome like a horse race are significant, and in the case of the Belmont Stakes, on this occasion something was amiss. When Big Brown turned for home, something wasn't right. Jockey Kent Desormeaux knew the big bay colt was finished. Trainer Rick Dutrow Jr., who guaranteed racing's first Triple Crown in 30 years, knew it, too.

Do stock market analysts take creative writing or are they the ultimate bandwagon guys? The lame information provided by stock market analysts keep providing more fodder for my rants. Last Friday -- Lehman raised Anadarko Petroleum (NYSE: APC) to Overweight from Equal Weight citing relative valuation and strong U.S. gas exposure....well duh!

I have ranted and raved about the poor performance of most analysts for almost the entire time I have been writing for BloggingStocks but the wonders never cease. The stock is at a 52 week high and now they take notice. I don't have their "training" yet I was pushing APC at $40, its low. It closed at $78.15 near its all time high and now Lehman makes the call. To quote a 90 year old Wall Streeter when asked to share what he had learned from his 70 years in the market "Nobody knows nuttin". The following is the two year chart for APC.

The Motley Fool ranted in a similar vain when they discussed a study by Patrick Cusatis and J. Randall Woolridge of Pennsylvania State University that studied 20 years' worth of published earnings estimates made by Wall Street industry analysts. They discovered that analysts were consistently overly optimitsic and that practically speaking, you should ratchet them down to the tune of around 40%; or you'll be sorry.

This week I received a long rant from Dan, one our very astute readers. I extracted the following from what he wrote:

Yesterday I received an offer to "Cut My Indebtedness" by shifting over to a bi-weekly mortgage payment, tied to my paydays. The "offer" goes on to show how much I will save over the term of the loan by enrolling in their plan. The kicker is (& here is a reference to an old Country song I remember from years ago, "The Large Print Giveth, What the Small Print Taketh Away") the small print. There is a $9.00 per month "participation fee". A fee to participate? ...my rant. THEY CAN"T STOP YOU FROM MAKING ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS.

This has happened to me as well, and if you have lived in your home for a few years or more, it is likely you received a similar offer. Dan raised many valid points in his longer version, but the three main points are that you should focus on the small print, there should not be a fee for paying down your loan, and finally if you have a loan that allows prepayments of the principal amount you can make interim principal payments any time you want.

One feature of bi-weekly payments that Dan overlooks or fails to distinguish, and that homeowners should recognize, is that they reduce the amount of interest you pay over the life of the loan without additional "monthly" principal contributions. That is a real savings, and the bank feels the service of processing this has a cost to them and a value to you. On most loans, the savings of many thousands of dollars would greatly exceed the fee, and the fee does not increase on larger loan amounts. Perhaps it is their presentation of the offer that appears deceitful.

Here is a detailed explanation of bi-weekly payments. The example they give you indicates a savings of almost $58,000 interest on a $75,000 loan. Fees or no fees it provides substantial benefit tothe borrower.

Happy Mothers Day

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.

In this month' Money Magazine story, Calming words for troubled times the final words were by Deena Katz, Chairman, Evensky & Katz Wealth Management, who shared this "My mom always said, if you're going to do it, don't worry; if you're going to worry, don't do it."

Are you a worrier? Do you fret over everything? Can you undo those things you have already done that you are worried about? Sometimes it's tough. But maybe you should consider it. How does that apply to the stock market or investing in general. From that perspective it is very simple. Do not invest in anything that will keep you up at night.

While this may be good advice for most aspects of investing there is one time that it might cost you. When stocks are rising few people are worried. When stocks are falling everyone's worry factor rises. As their worry factor rises they tend to become sellers. This may relieve one of their worries but it also may relieve them of their money because it contradicts two other old bits of wisdom.

"Buy low and sell high" is a common refrain said tongue in cheek because a bell does not ring announcing the highs and lows. However, even 'my pal Warren' would advise that "investors should buy on fear and sell on greed". So then the modified version of mom's advice melding it with market realities is that you should be worried when others are not and remain calm when everyone else is panicking.

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.

The following story came to me this week from a reader who's sentiments may be shared by a lot folks. If I am the last one on the planet to have seen it and it has been circulating around the web for a long time, please excuse my redundancy.

The story pokes fun at business bureaucracy, mismanagement, corporate fairness, employee relations and more. Finding this type of story more often in your in-box displays a kind of recession fatigue and growing cynicism.

A foreign company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the foreign company won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the foreign team had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised that too many people were steering the boat while not enough people were rowing.

If you do not receive the annual report from Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) you are probably missing the stock appreciation too, but you do not have to miss "my pal Warren's" charming musings about the company, investing, or the economy.

You can find Buffett's letters on the company website or refer to Everything Warren Buffett for this year's letter, and past years as well. One thing I thought worthy of sharing from the letter was the notion that financial statements require a lot of guess work. Buffett bemoans his concern about having to include a best guess and forthrightly acknowledges it could be wrong. He highlights the difficulty in predicting future costs with the following story.

A story I told you some years back illustrates our problem in accurately estimating our loss liability: A fellow was on an important business trip in Europe when his sister called to tell him that their dad had died. Her brother explained that he couldn't get back but said to spare nothing on the funeral, whose cost he would cover. When he returned, his sister told him that the service had been beautiful and presented him with bills totaling $8,000. He paid up, but a month later received a bill from the mortuary for $10. He paid that, too -- and still another $10 charge he received a month later. When a third $10 invoice was sent to him the following month, the perplexed man called his sister to ask what was going on. "Oh," she replied, "I forgot to tell you. We buried Dad in a rented suit.

Reading through this years Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) annual report, I noticed that the cash float that the company is carrying in it's insurance enterprises has reached $59 billion. As "my pal Warren" explains, this float is free to invest as long as they break even on premiums and claims.

This is one of the many advantages Berkshire has had over other investors for decades, and this allows it to leverage it's returns without the risk that others would have to take to make the same money.

Berkshire does not own the float, but it owns the profits, and the larger the insurance business becomes the more float he has to invest. Adding the $59 billion to BRK's $41 billion of cash and short-term securities means that Buffett is walking around with $100 billion. Except for a few governments, there are not many entities with that kind of financial might.