A lot of readers have been thinking similar thoughts to someone who commented on my recent post: Chasing Value: Watch BNI -- the heck with Citigroup.

• Donald wrote, "Why the hell would I take advice from a company, that as a whole, its Net income was US$ −27.684 billion for 2008.

While this is an obvious question from a skeptical investor, and we all have good reason to be skeptical, it obscures a more important issue. Is there a relationship between the financial standing of the bank and the value of an individual analyst or adviser? The answer is, absent any conflicts of interest, that there is not.

Shares of Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) are down about 90% over the past year, but CEO Ken Lewis somehow still has his job.

In an interview with Maria Bartiromo, Lewis managed to express confidence and, even more amazing, a belief that his decisions to acquire Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial will ultimately prove to have been intelligent -- within two years: "I'm not making predictions, but I think that in the next two years we can show that every acquisition was a good acquisition. "

This post is part of a series featuring bargain stocks that are worth a look now. See more Cheap Stocks.

Of the 15 components on our Cheap Stocks roster, Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) is the one that my colleague Nick Perry dubbed "a bold choice." With plenty of question marks still surrounding the major financial names, there are undoubtedly those who will go even further and dub this pick "an unwise choice." On the other hand, some will probably just say we're stealing Warren Buffett's idea. With all potential criticisms thusly taken into consideration, let's take a look at what makes Goldman so hard to resist.

First, let's be upfront about the fundamentals. Amid the recent financial crisis, Goldman Sachs is one of the few major names on Wall Street that still has a pulse. Although it's now a bank holding company rather than an investment bank, Goldman stands out by sheer virtue of the fact that it has dodged bankruptcy rumors and has not needed an emergency rescue by one of its peers.

In fact, Goldman Sachs survived because it knew that most of those subprime-derived securities were toxic, and placed bets that the investments would lose value. Regardless, the bank still sold those securities to its clients, so we're not talking about the financial equivalent of Mother Theresa. On the bright side, nor are we discussing the financial equivalent of Nero -- and in today's market, there are plenty of favorable comparisons to be made between GS and its sector peers.

Sovereign funds from the Middle East, China, and Singapore have invested tens of billions of dollars in U.S. companies, especially banks and brokerage firms. But, as stocks of those companies have continued to fall, the funds have taken huge losses. No wonder they seem to have stopped investing in America.

On example is Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS). According to The Guardian, "China Investment Corporation's investment in Morgan Stanley, made just before Christmas, is also facing a significant loss. The securities it picked up for $5bn will convert to stock at $48 to $57 a share in two years' time. At present, however, Morgan Stanley's share price is closer to $42."

Sovereign funds have now also lost money, at least on paper, on Citigroup (NYSE: C), Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER), Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD), and several multi-national money center banks based in Europe.

The U.S. government and EU have asked sovereign funds to sign covenants that say they will only make investments for financial reasons, that they have no political agenda when they put money into banks and large companies. Even if these funds agree, their losses are likely to keep them out of the U.S. for a long time. That means the government is pushing to restrict the nature of their investments when Wall Street needs their money the most

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

News that the European Commission is planning to adopt proposals next week that will ask sovereign wealth funds to accept a code of conduct to govern their investment activities, raises the question if the U.S. government should take a look at the impact these funds may have on U.S. security.

Peter Mandelson, the European trade commissioner, said the code will outline standards of governance and transparency for such funds.

"The emphasis in their investments should be on commercial motivations, not national or strategic considerations. I think such a code is possible to draw up and would get acceptance from the wealth funds," the report quoted Mandelson as saying.

German companies, for example, are worried that China will steal their intellectual property or that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to use such investments "as a political instrument," according to European Member of Parliament Wolf Klinz.

The old Wall-Street adage of buying stocks when there is "blood in the streets" couldn't be more appropriate than now. With financial stocks getting pummeled every day, and home-builders in a slump of more than a year and a half, smart money is going to start loading up on these names. In fact, none other than investing guru Bill Miller, the veteran manager of Legg Mason Value Trust, said as much in a note to investors.

Regarding the financials, I know that dividends may get cut, that we may see the subprime mess spread to credit card companies, that we may see even larger write-offs in quarters to come. But I also know that these same institutions will be around five years from now, and they will be much leaner, more profitable operations than they are today. Financial giants like Citigroup (NYSE: C), Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), and even E*Trade (NASDAQ: ETFC) are getting awfully cheap according to any normative ratio, and should be seriously looked at.

As for home-builders, I am aware that the real-estate market stinks, but I also know that the smart money is beginning to move into communities where prices have been the hardest hit, and they are buying up projects at $0.75 on the dollar. Look for companies like Toll Brothers (NYSE: TOL) to be attractive long-term investments.

Take a shot, let it sit, and check in three years and see just how much money you made.

Disclosure: Writer holds a position in ETFC. He has no other position in any stock mentioned as of 11/4/07.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com.

This post is written as part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst 2006. You can vote for Suze Orman as the most annoying money expert.

For some of us, certain names come more readily to mind than others when a phrase like the "most annoying money expert" is bandied about. For her critics, financial guru Suze Orman is one such name.

Besides being the author of best-selling personal finance books and the host of CNBC's The Suze Orman Show and QVC's Suze Orman's Financial Freedom, Suze (rhymes with doozy, not snooze) has won two daytime Emmy Awards. A pitchwoman par excellence, she has raised millions of dollars for PBS. She's also a Certified Financial Planner who has worked at both Prudential and Merrill Lynch. With well-known catchphrases such as "Truth creates money. Lies destroy it," and "People first, then money, then things," she's a popular columnist and public speaker -- a favorite with Oprah and Larry King.

Orman claims that she does not multitask, which she says leads to mediocrity. While having neither a husband nor children to distract her, Orman also claims to have no personal assistant and no permanent employees -- she's a one woman show.

She has a reputation for offering practical, easy-to-understand, and down-to-earth financial advice that's nonjudgmental towards those who have made poor decisions. But her advice can also verge on New Age mystical. For instance, Orman sometimes asks audience members to rip a dollar bill in half. Most cringe at the idea, which she claims is due to that fact that money has an energy field that other objects don't have, almost as if money were alive.

We have two IPO's priced for opening this morning. Susser Holdings (SUSS) and LeMaitre Vascular (LMAT) will debut in trading.

LeMaitre Vascular (LMAT) priced its 6 million share IPo at $7.00, under the $8.00 to $10.00 range. Goldman Sachs led the group and co-managers were listed as CIBC, Cowen, and Thomas Weisel. The company was founded in 1983 and makes medical device catheters to treat peripheral vascular disease, so it competes against Foxhollow (FOXH) in some capacity. It posted 2005 revenues of about $31 million and reported nearly break-even results.

Now the biggest trick will be pronouncing the name.

Susser Holdings Corporation (SUSS) priced its 6,500,000 share IPO of its common stock at a price to the public of $16.50 per share. This was at the lower-end of the $16.00 to $18.00 range, but the offering was only set at 6 million shares originally. All of the shares are being sold by Susser Holdings, and the proceeds will be used to redeem a portion of its outstanding senior notes, repay outstanding revolving credit facilities and for general corporate purposes.

Susser Holdings operates 320 convenience stores in Texas and Oklahoma and 340 branded dealers via its wholesale fuel division.

The offering is led by Merrill Lynch as sole book runner; and co-managers are J.P. Morgan, Jefferies, and Morgan Keegan.

Jon Ogg is a partner in 24/7 Wall St., LLC; he does not own secuties in the companies he covers.

Merrill Lynch analysts believe there will be a dip in iPod sales in Apple's third quarter. Last year saw a similar call by financial experts who expected a 'cooling' in iPod sales that never came. But the third quarter is usually a slow time for electronics sales. And the iPod nano hasn't been quite the hit expected, thanks to the screen-scratching mojo that dogged it right out of the gate.

But there's a silver lining. The Merrill analysts think the general Apple lineup of laptops and desktops will make up for the dip in iPod sales. And other analysts point out that iPod video sales, shuffles, and the low end nano, are all marching along just peachy.

And, judging by last year's track record for iPod sales, Apple may surprise the perpetual 'iPod sales cooling off' crowd just yet.

[Disclosure: I own Apple stock at the date of this post]