Today's late rally tied to breaking news of President-elect Obama's naming Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary for the next administration, but there was also an end of week bargain-buying hunt. Today was also options expiration. Whatever the real determination was, at least it was not yet another miserable day of relentless selling.

Here were today's unofficial closing bell levels:

DJIA: 8,046 (+6.5%)
Nasdaq: 1,384 (+5.2%)
S&P 500: 800 (+6.3%)

Top Analyst Upgrades
Top Analyst Downgrades

Gap Inc. (NYSE: GPS) posted earnings at $0.35 EPS on revenue of $246 million. While other retailers are stinking up a storm, this compares to earnings of $0.30 EPS and revenue of $238 million last year. While sales did drop over 7% to $3.56 billion, analysts' estimates from Thomson Reuters (First Call) were only $0.34 EPS and $3.57 billion. Shares were up 21% at $11.62 right before the close.

Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) hired Sean Suchter, the former head of search operations at Yahoo! This could give them the brains and engine behind the search business without ever having to pay Yahoo! a dime. Shares were up 8% at $19.01 shortly before the close.

Nike Inc. (NYSE: NKE) managed a show of force when times are tough. The sporting apparel giant raised its quarterly dividend payout by 9% to $0.25. Shares were up over 6% at $46.41 right before the close.

USG Corp. (NYSE: USG) shares surged after disclosing that Warren Buffett and Faifax invested a combined $400 million into the home building products maker. This was on top of their investments in the company in the past. Shares were up 24% at $7.04 shortly before the close.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) rallied after the board of directors elected Mike Duke to replace Lee Scott as President and CEO of Wal-Mart, effective February 1, 2008. Shares were up almost 2% at $51.55 right before the close.

Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) sees that its customers are in trouble. "We live in a time when people are losing confidence in the ability of government to solve problems," said CEO Lee Scott in a speech quoted by Reuters. Saying that Wal-Mart is the "company of the future," Scott said the firm would take on issues of healthcare, energy consumption, and sourcing.

Scott's comments were outside what most companies would be comfortable saying about changing the basic behavior of its customers, but Wat-Mart may be big enough to bring down healthcare costs for hundreds of thousand of people by dropping prices on generic drugs. By making its electronics products more energy efficient Wal-Mart could have an impact on overall electricity use. It does sell enough consumer goods to potentially do that. According to the company, it is even in talks with car-makers to see if its can be of help building and marketing hybrids.

What Wal-Mart is talking about is obviously good for Wal-Mart. Helping its customers save money, up to a point, helps them continue to have money to shop. But the company's statements go beyond that. Wal-Mart is saying it will take a role that has been abandoned by the government. At the very least it is a role the government has passed on in many cases. An odd position for a big company, but one that Wal-Mart is taking nonetheless.

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

It was hard to argue with Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT)'s ruthless efficiency and emphasis on cost-cutting at all costs when it was producing results.

But as the five-year chart below shows, Wal-Mart's stock has been a serious laggard of late. Meanwhile, its more socially conscious discounting cousin, Costco (NYSE: COST) has been on a tear.



Over the past five years, shares of Wal-Mart have lost more than 10% of their value. Costco is up better than 100% over the same period.

Vasquez apparently saw a tremendous amount of shopping online for holiday goodies, which is surprising since research I've performed before shows most customers shop for decoration items in person instead of on the web. Regardless, Vasquez's words sounded upbeat and I agree with him that www.walmart.com will probably see a pretty decent holiday shopping season this year. Heck, it already started the madness last week.

But then, Vasquez is predicting a rise of 40% to 60% this year for Walmart.com sales compared to last year. That level sounds too much like projective cheerleading than reality since customers will most likely tighten those spending belts more than in a long time -- starting now. If Vasquez is correct, a rise of that level would indeed be a coup if those numbers became actualized after December.

There's a bold flag flying above the solar energy camp, and I like the dialog coming from at least one of the men raising that flag. T. J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (NYSE: CY), laid it on the line recently when he stated his opinion regarding CEOs like General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Jeff Immelt, Wal-Mart's (NYSE: WMT) Lee Scott, and Peter Darbee of PG&E. Rodgers was quoted by CNN Money as saying, "Every one of the names you just mentioned would flunk his ass in the most rudimentary test about global warming."

It's not necessarily that I agree with what Rodgers said, but any man who has stuck with a viable manufacturing concept for as long as Rodgers has stuck with the truth of solar electrical generation, and then has the gumption to call into question the motives of his peers in pursuing a similar path, gets a nod of respect from me. It's not about what he said, it's about why he said it.

Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) posted a 1.1% gain in same-store sales for May, just barely within the company's growth guidance of 1-2%. According to the press release announcing the results, "Last week, the Company announced plans at its shareholders' meeting to leverage capital resources through a strategy designed to improve returns, productivity and sales within its U.S. stores. The plans include moderating the growth of its U.S. supercenters, as well as a new share repurchase program that increased the Company's authorization to $15 billion."

So while the gains were weak, Wal-Mart is recognizing the need to shift the focus back to improving same-store sales, and is content to slow down on building new locations. The shares shrugged off the decline in same-store sales, and are up a little under 10% since the shareholders' meeting. Investors appear to agree with Wal-Mart's new strategy of moderating growth.

But where does all this leave CEO Lee Scott? With sales weak enough that the company has decided it needs to slow down growth, some would argue that his tenure as CEO has not been successful. The flat share price since he took over is certainly indicative of that. The increase in the buyback is essentially an admission that shareholders can find better things to do with their money than Lee Scott can. Yesterday, I wrote that Lee Scott might be on the hot-seat, and continued weakness in same-store sales isn't going to make it any cooler.

The dreaded vote of confidence (noun): When an individual, usually a leader, has mangled his or her job so badly that the boss is forced to defend them publicly by saying that they have "the utmost respect" or "tremendous confidence" in the person's abilities. Often, but not always, this is followed by the firing of the highly respected individual.

Wal-Mart's (NYSE: WMT) share price has lagged the market since Lee Scott took over as CEO in 2000, and the company has faced an ever-increasing amount of negative publicity: Spying on shareholders, environmental concerns, labor issues, and, most recently, the Julie Roehm contretemps. While the merit of all these scandals can be debated, the avalanche of bad publicity they have generated cannot be.

At Friday's annual meeting, Wal-Mart Chairman Rob Walton gave Scott the dreaded vote of confidence: "The board and the Walton family have absolute confidence in your leadership, Lee. We appreciate you and we thank you."

As Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) turns to late-night TV to try to boost its image, the Julie Roehm scandal continues to produce negative publicity, regardless of whether Ms. Roehm is telling the truth. A few days ago, Bloomberg reported that the company was facing a lot of pressure to reach a settlement with Roehm, and put an end to the rumors and innuendo.

Last month, Roehm called for the departure of CEO Lee Scott and others she accuses of violating the company's ethics policy. Some worry that a continuation of the battle with Ms. Roehm could lead to more damaging allegations which, regardless of their verity, could further harm the company's reputation.

In retrospect, there's almost no question that Wal-Mart should have settled the suit months ago, when Roehm was seeking approximately $1.5 million in salary and punitive damages. But now that the issue has been grabbing headlines for so long, a settlement could be seen as an admission of wrongdoing, and could generate even more negative publicity.

At this point, Wal-Mart is in a tough position. If Scott and others truly believe they're innocent of any wrongdoing, is it better to let the legal process run its course, regardless of the headlines generated in the interim? Would a settlement put an end to the negative publicity?

The issue really seems to hinge on what else Ms. Roehm has up her sleeve. If accusing Scott of buying a ring from a vendor was all she's got, then they may not want to settle. But if there's more to come in subsequent legal filings, a settlement is probably in the company's best interests.

The Julie Roehm scandal at Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is getting petty to the point of being goofy. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports that CEO Lee Scott recently purchased a diamond ring from the Aaron Group, a wholesale supplier of jewelry to Wal-Mart. The company didn't disclose the details of the purchase, but did say that Scott hadn't received any preferential pricing. A Wal-Mart spokesperson jumped to Scott's defense, saying that he is "subject to the same ethics policy as any other associate and has not violated either the spirit or the letter of Wal-Mart's ethical standards."

The Bentonville retailer has a very strict ethics policy prohibiting its employees from receiving anything free from suppliers. The only thing interesting about this is that the Aaron Group is a maker of "popular priced jewelry" so it would seem like an unusual place for Scott to buy jewelry. But who knows.

The bad news for Wal-Mart is that this is just more bad publicity, however inane it is. I'm sure that they're regretting not settling Roehm's lawsuit a long time ago.

Oh boy. Last year's Wal-Mart marketing department scandal is reaching a new fever pitch. And with no clear end in sight. That's right -- Julie Roehm is back (no, that's not a movie title), and I wonder if this PR spectacle will be quashed at this Friday's annual Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) shareholder's meeting.

The former Wal-Mart advertising executive, fired last year by the world's largest retailer, apparently is not going to go out quietly. As my colleague Peter Cohen examined here last week, Roehm has filed all sorts of charges against various Wal-Mart brass, including current CEO H. Lee Scott. I couldn't help but throw a few pennies into the well on this one.

Is it true in that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? That is the phrase that came into my mind upon reading Roehm's latest list of gnarliness against some employees of her former employer. Allegations of gift taking, diamond purchasing, yacht discounts and other scandalous behaviors are being made public, whether true or not. I can't help but wonder. After all, as a top executive, Roehm was surely privy to some pretty juicy Wal-Mart dish. This is turning into a ridiculous spectacle that evokes images of the Thomas Coughlin mess from a year ago.

If Wal-Mart CEO Scott follows through and sues Roehm and her lawyer on a personal level, this could get even uglier. All of this while Wal-Mart scrambles to preserve a pleasant public face. Wal-Mart is not on the ropes at all, even with all the negative press and lower-than-expected financial results from recent months (along with substandard future projections). But the company needs to find a way to make itself more relevant outside its core customer (if that's possible) and take back the thunder it once had with the American public. Right now, the capitalistic nature of America is shining brightly, as there are companies competing quite well against the Bentonville behemoth, and all this "he said, she said" nonsense is going to help prevent the retailer from focusing on, umm, retail.

File this under Julie Roehm: avenger. The PR food fight between Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and its former marketing communications chief just got more interesting. I don't know why she picked late Friday afternoon on a get-away-weekend to launch her latest missive but according to the Wall Street Journal, Julie Roehm is alleging that WMT executives violated its ethics policy by accepting discounts on yachts, diamonds and personal gifts from vendors.

To put this into perspective, here's a recap of the rounds so far:

1. Wal-Mart fires Roehm alleging she accepted gifts from an advertising agency that was later chosen to handle WMT's ad account (12/06).
2. Roehm countersues WMT for breach of contract (12/06).
3. In a countersuit, WMT releases salacious details about an alleged affair Roehm had with a subordinate -- Sean Womack -- accusing her of misusing WMT travel funds on business trips with him. The suit cites one e-mail purportedly sent to Womack by Roehm as saying: "I think about us together all of the time. Little moments like watching your face when you kiss me." (3/07).

And today's round goes to Roehm, who alleges that WMT CEO H. Lee Scott, received "preferential prices" on yachts and "a large pink diamond for his wife" through his relationship with Irwin Jacobs. One of Jacobs's companies, Jacobs Trading, has the exclusive right to buy unsold WMT merchandise.

Laundry detergent manufacturers have done it again; doubling the potency of detergent while cutting the bottle size in half. The Wall Street Journal talks about the marketing challenge that Procter & Gamble Co. (NYSE: PG), Unilever (NYSE: UL) and their competitors are about to face. The impetus for this move is not a greener earth or a more useful product, but instead, pressure from retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) to squeeze more product into the same shelf space. You will be able to do just as many loads with half as much detergent, and the price will be the same per bottle. The problem is getting people to realize that and, more importantly, convince them that they aren't somehow getting ripped off.

As the Journal says, "Retailers are pushing the big shrink in detergent bottles because when their shelves are full with smaller bottles, they lose fewer sales to products being out of stock and less employee time is spent replenishing product. Retailers also save on transportation costs because more of the smaller bottles can fit on a truck. Meanwhile, manufacturers, which over the past two years have been hit hard by high oil prices, save on the petroleum-based plastic packaging as well as the costs of shipping to retailers."

Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott's strategy of promoting the products as green-friendly makes sense, given how in vogue that is right now -- less plastic, less transportation -- it actually is environmentally friendly. But there's still the emotional, less rational problem: How do you convince someone to pay the same amount for 50 ounces as they used to pay for 100? And what's more, why do the retailers and manufacturers get all the benefits?

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) can't seem to find a strategy and stick to it -- at least in its U.S. market.

The company's recent quarterly results release featured CEO Lee Scott saying that the world's largest retailer would be returning to its roots and lowering prices over the summer to goose sales. Didn't Wal-Mart, just last year, say that it wanted to take the focus away from lower prices (while still maintaining them) and lure higher-ticket, higher-margin shoppers into stores?

Did that strategy not work, or did the company not give it enough time? Here we are in May 2007 and sales at the retailer haven't picked up nor have profits gone up appreciably. So when all else fails, Wal-Mart returns to is ultra-discounting strategy. How droll.

Wal-Mart's latest profit expectations were met by cost-cutting measures at its stores, international sales growth and its Sam's Club division. Organic profit growth did not materialize at its U.S. store base, the biggest part of its business.

So, with that in mind, I'm guessing that the company is partially abandoning hope of finding profits through higher margins at its Wal-Mart stores and is looking to make that up elsewhere (outside its core business).

Does that sound a little odd? It does to mine.

Although the stock price of Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) has floundered for years with little deviation from the $50 area, the retailer's CEO has been bagging some large paychecks even as WMT shareholders have received bupkus from their investments. It's true that investors should be looking for longer-term returns instead of three-month returns, but it's been half a decade since WMT has moved in a significant way.

Would Sam Walton be proud of the performance of the current CEO, Lee Scott? This question was postulated over at Forbes.com, and it makes a pretty good point. With returns of -3.4% annually since Scott has been at the helm, does that kind of performance merit a $60 million payout for Scott since he's been at the helm? That's $8 million a year.

All the PR hogwash from boards that overpay under-performing leaders based on "competitive market rates" is laughable. Shouldn't a CEO's performance be relative to the performance of the company being led? After all, if you base pay on industry metrics, who's to say that those being looked at for a baseline are performing at the top of their game? Nothing says that -- and it's all relative. The shareholders who have a stake in under-performance should demand that executive pay be tied to that, not meaningless competitive metrics in the CEO world where the comparison could be on another leader's shining performance. Hey, you and I don't get paid that way. Why should CEOs?

Welcome to the seventh installment of The Wal-Mart Weekly -- a new weekly column dedicated to bringing you insight, wit, facts, results, opinions and just a bit of everything else when it comes down to a very hot topic these days: Wal-Mart.

Last week I looked at Wal-Mart Stores' (NYSE:WMT) image issues to see what the world's largest retailer had in plan to goose its public image and try to form some sort of cohesive marketing message for its consumers. Basically, I can't find any strong image that Wal-Mart presents right now except the "Always Low Prices," and that is somewhat stale at this time.

This week I wanted to discuss what the retailer could do to supercharge its international strategy. Hey, when sales are going down in your largest market (the U.S.), there's nothing better than to attack international markets and grow sales there, right? The problem is, Wal-Mart has failed big-time in a few international countries recently (South Korea and Germany), but it's pushing hard into Europe (possibly) and definitely into China and India.