TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says both oil futures and equity futures can move these hot issues.

Will the futures pull down the oil and gas stocks today? No, I don't mean the oil futures, I mean the equity futur

Last week when oil exploded, we caught two days of trading that dropped the stocks hard. We caught a bit of a bid in the nat gases like Chesapeake (NYSE:CHK) and Devon (NYSE:DVN) but at the end of the day, but the stocks were truly overwhelmed by the simple fact that they are in the indices.

This pattern has really held down the integrateds: last week Conoco (NYSE:COP) should have exploded, but it couldn't because it is such a big part of the S&P. Chevron (NYSE:CVX) and Exxon (NYSE: XOM) are no different.

The natural gas stocks are not as big a factor, but they can be rocked down without a problem.

I am not saying to avoid looking at the oil futures. They can control the stocks. I am saying that the equity futures tide can take down anything, even when the oil futures spike hard.

It's a sad week for skeptical investors as MarketWatch columnist Herb Greenberg has delivered his last column for the site. He is leaving Dow Jones to start his own research firm.

For his last piece, Greenberg offers readers parting advice. I would suggest printing the column out and consulting it before making your next investment. Following these tips won't help you avoid every bad investment, but it'll probably eliminate most.

Greenberg's tips are these: the numbers don't lie -- pay attention to the numbers and ignore the narrative. Greenberg writes that "some short sellers and forensic analysts don't like to talk to companies. They want to avoid the spin or the face-to-face meeting that can create a psychological connection that may skew what otherwise would be black-and-white analysis. Don't ever underestimate the power and influence of the human factor."

Greenberg also suggests paying attention to quality of earnings, understanding the flexibility that exists within GAAP, and -- this one might be a little trite but it's still true -- not confusing stocks with companies. Greenberg also urges investors to "instead of asking how much you can make, first ask how much you can lose. That is what the smart guys do."

Although he's been the brunt of a lot of vitriol from conspiracy theorists and investors in bad companies, Herb Greenberg has been right more often than not -- which is a lot more than can be said for just about any other financial journalist.

On May 1st, financial journalism will be losing one of its best voices.

In a post on his blog this morning, Herb Greenberg wrote that "I'm leaving MarketWatch, Dow Jones and traditional journalism to start an independent research firm with my friend, Debbie Meritz, an analyst/accountant who has been a very good source of ideas in the past."

In addition to being an all-around great guy, Herb is one of the best scambusters in the business, calling shenanigans at companies like Krispy Kreme (NYSE: KKD) and Novastar Financial long before analysts or the SEC had caught a whiff of anything.

He's also demonstrated tremendous bravery, continuing to write about Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK), even after libelous comments by its CEO/village idiot Patrick Byrne referring to him as a "crooked reporter."

Herb will be leaving MarketWatch May 1st, and there may be some downtime before his research firm begins alerting investors to hype and exaggeration. So if you're a crooked CEO looking to dupe investors, you might have a narrow window of opportunity before Greenberg is back on the case.

Herb Greenberg has an excellent column (subscription required) in this weekend's Wall Street Journal, raising questions about the euphoria investors are feeling over the IPO of Visa Inc. (NYSE: V). First, Visa's disclosure of risk factors includes more than 8 pages of legal and regulatory risks -- much of it is boilerplate but that's a lot of legal issues.

Other risk factors facing Visa include heavily reliance on a few customers and, gasp, a slowing in the growth-rate of transaction volume.

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the Visa IPO, but I'd be wary of diving in here for a few other reasons. The Visa IPO was, in part, inspired by the tremendous success of MasterCard's (NYSE: MA) 2006 IPO, which is up more than 300%. Here's the thing: the success of that IPO should have nothing to do with whether you buy or don't buy shares of Visa. That's past, and it's completely irrelevant. But I think that a lot of people are buying the Visa IPO because they "missed out" on the MasterCard run-up, and that's a recipe for disaster. MasterCard's strong performance over the past year and half is no way a harbinger of great things to come for Visa shareholders.

In addition, I have the same skepticism of the deal that I have with any IPO. Visa was not in desperate need of the $17.3 billion it raised and presumably went public now because they felt that they would be able to sell shares at a strong valuation. Buying shares right after the IPO is like buying clothing off the rack at Nordstrom's: You ain't gonna get any bargains.

One of the first things you learn in economics is that incentives matter -- and that if you get the incentives wrong, the results can be, well, interesting. Exhibit A: the subprime mess.

In an interesting column in this weekend's Wall Street Journal, Herb Greenberg writes (subscription required) about Lululemon (NASDAQ: LULU), where the terms surrounding options grants put top executives in a position to serve the private equity backers rather than other minority shareholders who bought the shares during or after the IPO -- at a much higher price.

In the case of Lululemon, CEO Robert Meers saw some of his options vest based on when the private equity backers cashed out. According to Greenberg, "The vested amount would immediately leap to as much as 40% if private-equity investors sold; the actual amount was based on a sliding scale tied to how much they actually made."

Options that vest based on some sort of performance are great. But I'm skeptical of options that vest based on when private equity backers who paid a tiny fraction of what other investors paid for their stake in the company cash out.

I'm wary of companies taken public by private equity firms in general. The buyout shops are masters of the art of "buy cheap and sell dear," and "buying dear" tends to be a great way to lose money in the stock market.

Dealbook is reporting (although speculating is probably a better word) that Krispy Kreme Doughnuts (NYSE: KKD) may be preparing to put itself up for sale. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise given the problems Krispy Kreme has experienced over the last few years.

Just in 2007, Krispy Kreme fell from nearly $14 a share to under $3. Although this is bad enough, the long-term picture is even worse. In 2003, Krispy Kreme hit $50, so the five year performance is something like negative 90%. While health fads are in part to blame, with carbohydrates being vilified in many popular diets, most analysts suspect that Krispy Kreme's management is largely responsible for the poor performance.

Marketplace's Herb Greenberg, who has long thought that Krispy Kreme's old CEO needs to go, is the main source of speculation that Krispy Kreme may be looking for a buyer. He argues that the recent resignation of the old CEO, Daryl G. Brewster, suggests that the board is finally getting serious about turning things around. More importantly, the new CEO, James H. Morgan, has an investment banking background, and his involvement suggests that the company is looking for outside intervention.

Herb Greenberg reported on CEOs on the hot seat in his latest column. He included a reference to Sears Holdings (NYSE: SHLD) CEO Alwyn Lewis, who may be poised to serve as sacrificial lamb for the company's failed turnaround -- which should probably be blamed on chairman Eddie Lampert, because he controls the company's investments and failure to invest in its stores.

Greenberg notes that, "Still, with a 2006 salary of $1 million and total compensation of $4.8 million, it would appear that unless Sears reports exceptional fourth-quarter results, Lewis may be on the path to scapegoat, which might not be so bad: If he's fired for what the company calls "constructive termination," he will get a cash payment of $3 million with a total package valued at $22.9 million. A Sears spokeswoman declined to comment. "

I've heard the phrase "constructive termination" before but never really given it much thought. Lewis' employment agreement defines this phrase as Lewis' voluntary resignation following a board stripping him of his titles, an adverse change in his responsibilities, or even a reduction (heaven forbid!) in his base salary and/or bonus.

This is about as great of an example of management gibberish as you'll ever come across -- and sadly it exists in the employment agreements of many executives. Constructive termination means resigning after you've essentially been fired. Calling it constructive is like saying that kicking someone in the groin for giving a wrong answer in math class is constructive criticism.

It would appear that this idea of constructive termination is a key factor in allowing executives who are essentially fired to walk away with huge, or even moderate, severance packages. Why should someone who's fired for bad performance even get severance?

Hopefully shareholder activists will take this issue on in the future.

I know it's the end of the year. We're all bombarded with the "Top X of 2007" or the "Worst Y this Year." I'm actually thinking of making the top lists of the top lists. It's like Kramer's coffee table book about coffee table books on Seinfeld.

Anyway, Herb Greenberg of Marketwatch threw his hat into the ring this morning with his vote cast on the worst CEO of 2007. The winner (or is it loser?): Eddie Lampert, CEO of Sears Holdings (NASDAQ: SHLD). Herb says of Lampert, "So far, for all of Sears, including Kmart, the strategy [of focusing on profitability over revenue growth] has failed miserably. Not only have same-store sales (which Lampert says are "overrated" as a metric) gone deeper into the red, but gross margins, Ebitda and operating income for Kmart are also going in the wrong direction."

I'd like just to posit the idea that while Lampert might have failed as a CEO of Sears, the retail store, turning around the old-school retailer hasn't really been his main priority. He's trying to follow in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) shoes by using a cash flow business as the crux of an investment empire. So investors should begin to judge Lampert's firm as a holding company, not just on Sears' results.

In his latest blog post, Herb Greenberg asks whether Wall Street should hand over its bonuses to victims of the subprime mess.

Of course, it's sort of academic -- kind of like asking whether Michael Vick should donate money to the ASPCA. Fat chance. But anyway, it's an interesting philosophical question, so I'll give it a shot.

The idea that Wall Street executives should give some of their bonus money to "victims" of the subprime mess seems to be based on a lack of understanding of what actually happened. The housing bubble and increase in subprime lending and decline in the quality of the loans was a happy conspiracy (for awhile anyway) between lenders, Washington, and people who were eager to own their first homes.

Ten days ago I had the opportunity to appear on CNBC's Power Lunch program hosted by Bill Griffith. On the opposite side of the interview was Herb Greenberg of MarketWatch and more recently, a frequent contributor to CNBC. The question came up about what stocks or sectors are actually doing well and might see good earnings for the September quarter. My response was the technology sector was actually enjoying some excellent times.

Herb Greenberg asked if I thought this was the crowded trade, as "everyone" appears to be in tech? Having only seconds to respond I explained that results appear to be in order and technology is a truly global play. With the chance now to really think about it and respond hopefully a bit more eloquently I would say "of course tech is the crowded trade. It is suppose to be." Why?

The markets have a way of segmenting which sectors are achieving stated expectations and of course, which ones are not. Markets do this very quickly. Capital will flow to where growth and visibility present themselves and certainly technology is becoming more visible. The crowded trade for 2005/2006 was in energy as we witnessed nearly obscene profits generated from the major oil companies. If Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM) earns under $9 billion in a quarter now, that will be viewed as a major disappointment!! But the point is investors dollars flowed to where the action --or the earnings were.

MAJOR PAPERS:

• Alain Dassas has been named CFO of Nissan Motor Company (NASDAQ: NSANY), filing a position that has remained open for four years, reported the Wall Street Journal. Dassas runs the Formula One race car team at Renault, which has a 44% stake in Nissan.

OTHER PAPERS:

• Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Citigroup Inc (NYSE: C), Lehman Brothers Holdings (NYSE: LEH) and JP Morgan Chase and Company (NYSE: JPM), The banks involved in the underwriting of the TXU Corporation (NYSE: TXU) buyout by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and TPG, have offered to pay the $1B breakup free to convince the private equity buyers to back out, according to the U.K. Times.
• GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) is currently looking for someone to succeed CEO Jean-Pierre Garnier, who will retire next May, and investors are thought to want a CEO that will 'radically overhaul' the company and possible break it up, reported the Guardian.
• The Seattle Times reported that Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) is expected to announce that the first flight of its 787 Dreamliner jet will be delayed at least until late October, according to an inside source.

WEBSITES:

• Herb Greenberg noted in his MarketWatch blog yesterday that International Rectifier Corporation (NYSE: IRF) disclosed on Friday after the market close how it was committing fraud by having a subsidiary hide products already booked as revenue in "off-books warehouses."

According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Dell (NASDAQ: DELL) is "finally getting back to business" after it was forced to restate four years worth of financials because of aggressive accounting that was done, in some cases at the request of "senior executives," to meet financial targets.

Shares are up since the restatement. With the exception of the always-vigilant Herb Greenberg, Dell's restatement has gotten very little coverage in the financial press. The dollar amount of the restatement can be quantified easily -- $150 million. That's less than 2.5% of the company's current market cap. So this is hardly Enron.

But the larger point -- and one that seems to be getting little attention -- is what this matter says about the corporate culture at Dell, and the company's internal controls. This fraud -- "adjustments to various reserve and accrued liability accounts ... so that quarterly performance objectives could be met" is fraud -- went on for four years.

Hopefully Dell's board and management are taking the steps to improve the company's corporate culture to one of integrity. That's the real issue here, and it's a vital part of "getting back to business."

Nautilus (NYSE: NLS) President and CEO Greg Hamman resigned abruptly, with no explanation given in the company's press release. Hamman will also be giving up his board seat, and will be replaced in his leadership role by Robert S. Falcone, the company's current lead independent director, on an interim basis.

Sherborne Investors has accumulated just under 20% of the company's shares and, given its activist background, it seems likely that the fund's position in the stock contributed to Hamman's departure.

Also intersting, the company has attracted the scorn of watchdog Herb Greenberg for its harsh treatment of an analyst who had the nerve to give the stock a sell rating. The stock's performance in recent years tells you all you need to know about the wisdom of the analyst's sell-call, and also the performance of the company's management.

But there may be value here. Nautilus is trading close to its book value with a low price-earnings multiple and a firm like Sherborne may be just what is needed to shake things up.

I would consider buying Nautilus here. The party has already ended for one overpaid CEO, and more changes are hopefully coming. There is no question that the Nautilus brands, including BowFlex have value.

The always-insightful Herb Greenberg had a terrific blog post today that everyone should read: Fools Rush In: Too Smart for Their Own Good.

The markets are jittery, and it seems that investors' fears are being realized: The problems in the credit markets weren't contained to the subprime sector. Why did it happen? As Greenberg writes, and he's 100% right, everyone was way too confident. Consumers thought they could handle debt loads they couldn't, and lenders thought they could too. Banks and funds thought that by bundling together loans into collateralized debt obligations, everything would work out peachy. Right. And if you believe that, I have a hedge fund you might be interested in: Long Term Capital Management.

To paraphrase the title of one of my favorite business books, genius fails -- with great frequency actually. And if something seems like a dumb idea, it usually is. Couldn't people figure out that lending people money to buy houses (or handbags or yachts) that they couldn't afford wouldn't end well? Packaging them into CDOs didn't make it any smarter.

Greenberg writes:

Happy days were here again, and Wall Street's wizards had figured out yet another fail-proof magic potion that would let this party last forever.

Unfortunately for them and everybody else: While it was supposed to be fail proof, the magic potion wasn't fool proof. And as it turns out, from Wall Street to Main Street, the fools there were aplenty.

Yup.

While the shareholders and board of directors at at Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ: WFMI) wish CEO John Mackey would pipe down, and the board at Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK), if it exists, seems indifferent to CEO Patrick Byrne's Regulation FD-flouting rants, Herb Greenberg has a nice WSJ column (subscription required) on executives who take a different approach. To borrow a line from Calvin Coolidge, these companies have decided that nothing they don't say will do them any harm.

The piece talks about a few thinly traded, closely held companies, several of which list their shares on the OTC markets, which tend to be highly illiquid and provide little exposure. These companies don't hold regular conference calls and don't present at investor conferences, but some have actually provided investors with very strong returns.

The highlight of the column is a company called Expeditors International (NASDAQ: EXPD), a transportation and logistics business. Expediters responds to shareholder inquires by filing 8-Ks with the SEC providing pithy, and often bitchy, responses to questions. The latest series is one of the strangest 8-Ks I have ever seen.