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.

I read many business plans. And, unfortunately, there are many that are lackluster. After all, an entrepreneur doesn't want to get bogged down in process.

Then again, there are many examples of successful businesses that didn't have formal business plans. For example, Compaq Computer was based on the scribblings on a napkin.

And yes, I agree you don't need a business plan.

However, the fact remains that a successful business still needs effective planning (former President Dwight Eisenhower once said: "the plan is useless, but planning is essential").

Well, the good news is that Tim Berry -- who is the founder of Palo Alto Software (the biggest provider of business plan software) -- has recently published a book on the topic. The title is spot-on: The Plan-As-You-Go Business Plan.

Of course, this can be a broad topic. Hey, don't many business books talk about planning?

This is true. But Tim focuses on the needs of small businesses; that is, those key things that move the needle.

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

Bloggers weren't kind to Nike's campaign for its Hyperdunk basketball shoes in late July. Three printed ads produced by Wieden+Kennedy were blamed as fostering anti-gay messages.

Most of the ads depicted one basketball player dunking over another in vaguely homo-erotic positions (mostly with one player's face in the other's crotch) with 'trash talk'-type slogans such as "Punks Jump Up," "Say Hello," "That Ain't Right." The hot-button line was from a popular 1992 rap song, "Punks Jump Up to get Beat Down," by Brand Nubian. The song was a good theme for basketball courts but for one thing; its lyrics, which advocated violence against homosexuals and featured the line, "I ain't down with gays."

At first, Nike supported the ad campaign. But when bloggers took the shoe giant to task for its "ethical sloppiness," Nike and its ad agency backed off and decided to withdraw the ads "to underline our ongoing commitment to supporting diversity in sport and the workplace."

Nike's move coincided with an ad-industry-wide debate about the use of gay stereotypes. Mars, Inc. also pulled an ad during the same week based on its criticism from national homosexual groups.

It looks like Halloween could be coming early to Wall Street this year. Thanks to the Treasury Department's announcement of a plan to bail out Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), it looks like the week could be starting off with pain for investors. That's because although their common and preferred stock will continue trading throughout the period that the government runs them, those issues will lose much of their value.

Much of the plan is consistent with what was leaked yesterday: firing the CEOs, replacing the boards, and putting the companies into conservatorship. The details that are new today have to do with the balance sheet restructuring that will take place. Bloomberg News reports the following key elements:

• Senior preferred stock. A new class of stock will be created that earns 10% dividends and gets access to the cash from these companies ahead of any other investors. Bloomberg wrote, "Treasury will receive $1 billion of senior preferred stock in coming days, with warrants representing ownership stakes of 79.9 percent of Fannie and Freddie. The government will receive annual interest of 10 percent on the initial investments."
• Forced liquidation of mortgage holdings. The plan forces Fannie and Freddie to reduce their mortgage holdings dramatically over the next several years. Bloomberg reports, "As a condition for the assistance, Fannie and Freddie will have to reduce their holdings of mortgages and [mortgage-backed securities (MBS)]. The portfolios shall not exceed $850 billion as of December 31, 2009, and shall decline by 10 percent per year until it reaches $250 billion."
• Quarterly capital injections. Depending on the net worth of Fannie and Freddie each quarter, Treasury will purchase more senior preferred. "The Treasury will purchase up to $100 billion of senior-preferred stock in each company as needed to maintain a positive net worth. It will also provide secured short-term funding to Fannie, Freddie and 12 federal home-loan banks," according to Bloomberg.

It now appears almost certain that the federal government will takeover Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE). The amount of money the Treasury will have to put into the companies to improve their balance sheets will probably wipe out common shareholders.

The news may foreshadow what will happen to Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) if its gets into more trouble The value of its commercial loan portfolio and mortgage-back securities is bound to fall as the real estate market gets worse.

Several outside investors, including Japanese broker Nomura and the Korea Development Bank, may pump money into Lehman. It is not good news that no one has pulled the trigger on putting up cash. All of the interested parties are probably waiting for Lehman's next quarterly earnings report. If the numbers are bad the value of Lehman's stock, which has gone from a 52-week high almost $68 to $16, could fall further.

The lesson from Freddie and Fannie (and, to some extent, Bear Stearns) is that the Fed and Treasury do not care about common shareholders. They get to go down with the ship.

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

With oil prices falling, some members of OPEC would like to see price cuts to put upward pressure on crude. That would make sense. It would bring members of the cartel more money and stretch out the pace at which they need to ship their current reserves.

Venezuela Columbia, where the head of state Hugo Chavez seems to have no love for the U.S., has lobbied fellow OPEC members hard to dial back oil shipments. The Arab states may not be so eager. According to Bloomberg, "Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest producer and de facto leader of the 13-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait may reject calls from Venezuela and Iran to trim supplies at its Sept. 9 meeting in Vienna."

Increased cash flowing into the Middle East is feeding sharp increases in inflation, but that may only be a small part of the reason behind the motivation to do nothing with fuel supplies.

Saudi Arabia and its neighbors know that extremism continues to grow in the region. They are also not geographically far removed from the trouble in Georgia. The nation, which is at "war" with Russia, is close to the norther border of Iran. In other words, there is more than one threat to stability in the region.

The United States keeps a tremendous military force in and around Saudi Arabia. The kingdom may not want to go any further than it has to alienate America.

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

As late as yesterday, forecasters believed that powerful Hurricane Ike would hit south Florida. Projections from the weather man now put its path straight over Cuba and into the Gulf of Mexico. The would make its U.S. landfall in either Texas or New Orleans. It would also bring it close to refineries and oil platforms that where threatened by weaker storms that ended up doing very little damage.

Ike, on the other hand, is a Category 4 storm, and that means the its damage could be exponentially greater than any storm that has hit the Gulf in three years. That leaves the potential of a real interruption in oil production and an increase in crude and gas costs.

So far, the price of oil has been immune to the weather, but OPEC may lower production and, combined with a big storm, crude begin to move back up toward $120.

The prevailing wisdom is that oil is on its way to under $100. But, prevailing wisdom has been wrong before.

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

In last week's preview we took a peek at expectations for Campbell Soup earnings, but now the company is scheduled to report fiscal fourth quarter results this coming Thursday. With Krispy Kreme also among the handful of companies scheduled to report this week, we may yet see whether consumers are turning to comfort foods in these uncertain times.

Campbell Soup Co. (NYSE: CPB), the world's biggest soup maker, is still expected by analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial to post net income of 25 cents per share (up 44.0% from a year ago) on revenue of $1.7 billion (up 7.4%). The Camden, N.J.-based company has just missed earnings estimates in the past few quarters. Its long-term EPS growth forecast is 7.9%, which is less than the industry average, but about the same as rivals Kraft Foods (NYSE: KFT) and HJ Heinz (NYSE: HNZ). The analysts' consensus recommendation is currently to buy Campbell.

Hip, Canadian apparel retailer Lululemon Athletica Inc. (NASDAQ: LULU) is also anticipated to be a big earnings gainer when it reports this week. Net income is expected to come in at 13 cents per share (up 46.2% from a year ago) on revenue of $88.2 million (up 50.3%). Lululemon met expectations when it reported 12 cents per share in the previous quarter. Its long-term EPS growth forecast is a healthy 40.2%, which is better than the industry average and that of rival Under Armour Inc. (NYSE: UA). The analysts' consensus recommendation is currently to buy Lululemon.

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

As a 40-something trying -- but hopefully not too hard -- to cling to an increasingly tenuous understanding of current youth culture, I can imagine how McDonald's ad execs made the perilous mistake that landed them on our list of Ads Gone Bad.

It was probably a gathering of 40-something copywriters in a conference room in mid-town Manhattan. (I just finished reading Then We Came to the End by Joshua Ferris, so now I think I'm an expert in such things). They were no doubt tossing around the latest slang that might play off McDonald's winning slogan "I'm Lovin' It."

Someone threw out, "I'd Hit It," and everyone pounced on it as a sure winner. Perfect for banner ads on websites.

But did anyone dare ask what it actually meant?

One issue likely to influence voters' choice for U.S. president in November is the U.S. economy.

The Iraq War/War on Terror, and other issues, such as health care concerns, are likely to be factors as well, but look for concern about the economy to be paramount. Of course, political science teaches us that party identification and voters' attitude toward each candidate will also help determine the vote for president.

(In a nutshell, the political science theory that best predicts vote is PI + ATC + MSI = Vote. Or, Party Identification + Attitude Toward the Candidate + Most Salient Issues = Vote. But more on that, some other time.)

Further, regarding the U.S. economy, there's been considerable coverage regarding its health -- sometimes too much -- but not as much clarity. So, without further ado, some "givens" or clarity about the U.S. economy.

• U.S. GDP: The U.S. economy is experiencing anemic growth, but technically, it is not in a recession. Unemployment is trending up -- now at 6.1% -- put is still relatively low, compared to unemployment levels in previous economic slowdowns. [Note: The above is not to slight anyone who has lost his/her job; each job lost is a serious problem/concern for the person involved.]
• Median income: The median U.S. family income is down. In 2006 the median U.S. family income, adjusted for inflation, was $58,407, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data, down from $59,398 in 2000. Since the economic slowdown started in October 2007, it's possible, but not likely, that median family income rose in 2008, but more than likely it fell. Moreover, it probably fell during that time period, for most families.

In the last year, Washington has been shoveling our tax dollars out the door to bail out the money mistakes of multi-billionaires.

It cut interest rates from 5.25% to 2% ,which sent inflation soaring, yet mortgage rates remain higher than they were a year ago. It spent $29 billion to finance the merger of Bear Stearns and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM). And now it's about to spend as much as $800 billion to bailout a few huge investors who own mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE).

I find the reasons why this latest bailout shouldn't happen to be far more compelling than the reasons it should. (Here's some background on the mortgage giants.)

Here are five reasons I think this bailout shouldn't happen:

• Punishes the innocent and rewards the guilty. Why does it make sense for taxpayers -- most of whom are paying their mortgages on time and working hard to support their families despite declining real wages and higher costs -- be asked to dig into their pockets to clean up the errors of a few large institutional investors? Why not let the people who made the bad decisions pay for their own mistakes?

Now that we know Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) are likely to cost taxpayers as much as $800 billion in a government bailout, I thought I'd provide some background on how we ended up in this mess. Here goes:

Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages, bundle them together, guarantee the payments, and sell them to investors. Between the two of them, they control 43% of the $12 trillion mortgage market -- or $5.2 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities.

In the last year, with housing prices in free fall and foreclosures spiking, they've lost $14.9 billion between them -- about 0.3% of those assets. And at the end of June, they held $84 billion in capital -- $12 billion more than the $72 billion regulators require, according to Bloomberg News. Do these conditions warrant radical government action?

The government thinks that they do. As I posted, yesterday, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is likely to announce a plan to put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. The government will run them and will wipe out the value of the common shares and slash the value of their preferred stock.

Plus, it will dismiss the executives and board members of both firms while doling out as much as $800 billion -- spread out in chunks to be determined each quarter based on what the government thinks Fannie and Freddie need to keep functioning.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

One of the most common complaints about private equity companies (and activist investors, corporate raiders, etc.) is that their relentless focus on making a quick profit results in the looting of companies, job losses, and so on.

That theory will be tested in court: Mervyn's LLC has sued its former private-equity owners -- including Cerberus and Sun Capital -- alleging that their profiteering tactics led to the chain's bankruptcy. When the $1.26 billion deal was consummated in 2004, The Wall Street Journal reports that (subscription required) "the deal was structured as two separate transactions -- one for the retailer and a second one for the retailer's real estate. This complicated structure, the suit alleges, enriched the private-equity firms while leaving the retail operations insolvent."

The firms then sold off real estate, paid themselves dividends, jacked up lease payments, and essentially transferred value from the chain to the private equity buyers, according to the lawsuit.

This will be a must-follow case -- assuming it isn't settled quickly and confidentially -- for those looking to understand the larger effects of buyout shops. I'm skeptical of the notion that private equity firms destroy companies and, if that was indeed the case with Mervyn's, it may have been a result of the complex structure and self-dealing.

In most cases however, there is little money to be made bankrupting something for which you pay hundreds of millions -- or billions.

There are times when you need an archive of information and evidence to make an argument.

Then there are times when one simple fact or incident makes the case by itself. (Which, incidentally, may very well be the genesis of the adage "A picture says a thousand words.")

Evidence item of consequence: a lunch that global trade consultant Edward Goldberg, a colleague of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, had with a Russian trade attaché.

The Russian trade attaché, Friedman relates, years ago was delighted to hear from Goldberg that the Bush administration wanted to drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The reason? The amount of oil derived would be negligible in terms of the U.S.'s needs, and it signaled that the Bush Administration was not planning to do anything to establish an alternative energy program, "which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia."

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

Wendy's ads promoting its dollar menu were meant to be hip. They depicted regular people mindlessly doing ridiculous things, like banging their heads against trees, or jumping in an enormous hole, or (in the ad in question), filling up with helium sucked from balloons so they floated near the ceiling. It was only the rare person dressed in a red-pigtailed Wendy's wig that countered the crowd. In the ad in question, a voice-over wonders why consumers would just fill up on anything when 99 cents will get you a junior bacon cheeseburger!

The subtlety of the message was lost on the National Inhalant Prevention Council. They made a public statement opposing Wendy's International, Inc.'s (NYSE: WEN) depiction of customers inhaling helium.

The Prevention Council said that the ad sends the wrong message and says that "Kids get the idea it's OK to put a gas in your body." While a Wendy's spokesperson contacted by BloggingStocks pointed out that even the ad does not condone helium inhaling; in fact, he says, "the enlightened consumer knows that it's wrong!" -- the ads didn't run much longer.