Best Buy, Inc. (NYSE: BBY), which saw modest sales gains in the holiday shopping month of December, is set to dominate the consumer electronics sector in 2008. Circuit City Stores, Inc. (NYSE: CC) is flailing its arms in surrender and competitors like Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and Costco Wholesale (NASDAQ: COST) just cannot match the consumer experience for gadgets and gizmos that Best Buy offers.

Although Best Buy has a commanding lead in the consumer electronics marketplace in my opinion, the company's stock has been classified as one of the "worst stocks" to own in 2008 by The Motley Fool. Technically, the analysis is something I agree with. Indeed, there are many good things going for Best Buy going into 2008, but at the same time, consumer spending may decline as energy and food prices continue to be high. Consumers may very well curb their discretionary spending on flat-panel televisions, iPods and laptop PCs.

However, I don't agree with the statement that competitors are becoming better in the consumer electronics space. Wal-Mart has really made a push towards displaying consumer electronics much like Best Buy does. Despite a helpful customer service experience, breadth of selection and pleasing overall environment, it doesn't come close to Best Buy's customer experience (my two cents).

How about the prices? Best Buy is right there along with Wal-Mart, for example. From what I have seen, Wal-Mart's electronics products pricing is not any lower than comparable products at Best Buy. Wal-Mart also has no incentive program like Best Buy's ultra-successful Rewards Zone loyalty program. Considering all that, where would you shop for that next 50-inch plasma TV?

Motley Fool member NICKDAWG had a very interesting and opinionated post on the site's popular message board, the Liquid Lounge. The post, which can be found here, listed the member's 10 predictions for 2008. In my opinion, many of his thoughts are very logical and worthwhile. I'd like to focus on a couple of his points (bold-face) in specific, though:

Do not buy any "dips" in houses or real estate

I think that for most retail investors, avoiding real estate (especially in the first half of this year) is a very smart decision. Don't be a hero and try and catch the bottom in these stocks. It's simply not worth the risk.

Sell consumer oriented issues. Don't "bottom fish" in the financials. Favor high quality, special situations with strong balance sheets.

In my opinion, bottom-fishing financials in the late first half of this year should prove to be a low risk, market-beating opportunity. Many of the financials that have been marked down in the most recent downturn have almost no risk of going bankrupt. I think buying many of these stocks now will prove to be a smart decision several years from now but I do believe that many of them haven't yet bottomed. I am going to post about this in coming weeks.

Volumes have been written about Warren Buffett's investment approach and I was thinking that although he tends to share his methodology, he sometimes is not as straightforward as he could be. This is the first in a series discussing my view of Buffett's approach, an interpretation in the simplest terms so that the information is immediately usable.

Although you can make money investing in the stock market many different ways, the person who has made the most money by far is Warren Buffett. Therefore, it seems to follow that every time you deviate from this path, you are reducing your chances of ultimate success.

Consider the following: If Tiger Woods wanted to help you with your golf swing or putting stance, would you say, "no thanks, I know what I'm doing?" If Carlos Santana wanted to show you a few moves on the guitar or Steven Spielberg offered to help you edit a movie, would you tell them to get lost? Not if you were truly interested in improving. For some reason, though, through the years Mr. Buffett has periodically been relegated to the sidelines of the investing world while a multitude of prognosticators claim to have a better way, even here on BloggingStocks. Over the last ten years I have found that the more I learn and the more I align my stock investment strategy with Buffett's approach, the better I do.

Yesterday, I wrote about Jim Cramer's prediction that The Gap, Inc. (NYSE:GPS) would be taken private in the not-so-distant future. Today, the Motley Fool continued the speculation with a series of "Dueling Fool" posts debating the future of the company.

One argument for taking the company private is that we are in the midst of "feeding frenzy" of leveraged buyouts and that a favorable private equity deal may not be favorable a few years down the road. Going private would remove the company from the scrutiny of public opinion and allow the company to take more drastic steps to improve.

If I were a shareholder of Gap, I would probably support the idea of a sale. The company has been under-performing for years and the turnaround efforts have not worked. A buyout could put Gap shareholders out of their misery at a nice premium to the current price.

Each weekday, I'll be bringing you my list of the five best articles from the staff at The Motley Fool:

1. Investing in Your Backyard: Michigan This piece gives an overview of some of some of the top publicly traded stocks in Michigan, including (of course) General Motors and Ford, but also Border's and Pulte Homes.
2. ConAgra's Tasty Quarter Michael Leibert takes a look at one of Jim Cramer's least favorite stocks. A laggard over the past few years as it attempts to sell off its commodities businesses to focus on its brands (like Healthy Choice, Chef Boyardee, and Hunt's), the company rebounded this quarter with a 38% gain in earnings after extraordinary items.
3. The 40-Year Old Savings Virgin With a title like that, I probably don't even have to tell you any more to get you to read the article. It's an interesting (albeit un-earth-shattering) look at the importance of starting early in saving and investing. Show it to your kids and grandkids.
4. Buffett Small Cap Investing This is an interesting take on Warren Buffett's ideas about investing in small cap stocks for huge profits over short periods of time. It's different from the buy-and-hold stuff that is now associated with Buffett, but it's how he earned the best returns of his career with the Buffett partnership. On a side note, this (big investments in a few small cap stocks) is how I've made most of gains in the market.
5. 3 Questions to Ask Before Selling This is a good article to read and remember. I always try to ask myself these questions before I sell a stock.
   
   

Whole Foods Market, Inc. (NASDAQ:WFMI) was reinstated as outperform on 11-10-06. This stock is very attractive to me based on the things I've read about it. If the analyst's assertions are true, and WFMI's stock lost value based on a simple change in management focus from business operations to maintaining share price, then what should be happening in timely fashion will be a moderated climb back up to WFMI's fair market value. Salim Haji, an excellent writer over at The Motley Fool, offers the opinion that this stock has an intrinsic value in the $50 to $60 range.

With additional consideration of the fact that WFMI is undertaking a strategic stock buy back program, if I was looking for some fun places to play with some funds, this would be one of them. It is my opinion that this stock deserves some close attention right now. I think it is headed back up. One other thing I take into consideration about this situation is the possibility that Wal-Mart is going to fall flat on its corporate face with its "organic" food roll out. If that happens, (and I think it will), then Whole Foods Market will add even a bit more sparkle to my eye!

You can learn more about organic foods at About Organics.

Somewhere in the deep dark attics of Time Warner, Superman has been waiting. He's been gathering star dust, or whatever it is that superheroes gather when they lie in attics so long. Up until last year, he was stored right next to Batman -- until he, you know, Begined with the $200 million, eighth-highest-grossing movie of 2005.

It was about time Superman answered the call and swooped down to save Time Warner from its no-big-movie-having self, says Rick Munarriz for the Motley Fool. The company has no top-10 movies this year, despite big hopes with action block-wanna-be-busters V for Vendetta, Firewall, and Poseidon.

That will certainly change with Superman Returns, says Munarriz, and he doesn't even much care if the movie doesn't make back its $260 million production budget. If people love it (and they will!), "it can turn the spigot for more cost-effective sequels in the coming years. This is about more than just one film or one Halloween season with a few more trick-or-treating Superman kiddies than in years past. It's about making a statement."

I, for one, hope Superman can save Time Warner -- if only for the fun I'll have writing headlines about it. [Photo opendoorexit]

After just reading this commentary by Seth Jayson over at the Fool, it got me thinking -- is Wal-Mart just a distributor or reseller? What value does Wal-Mart add to the customer equation besides being a clearinghouse for customer goods and everyday staples? While there is sure to be many varying answers and opinions to that question, I'll venture one based on my interactions with the company in a former retail interaction I had with them.

Wal-Mart's sole value-add to the customer equation is "low price for the customer, at all costs". Yes, that statement is sure to be picked apart by some people -- and that's alright, obviously. If Wal-Mart offers the lowest price (or even that perception through marketing efforts), more shoppers on a tight budget will shop there -- for groceries, tires, camping tents, clothes and TVs. With sales volume, Wal-Mart will slowly try to find a higher-margin product mix, over time, to boost revenue along with store growth. It's in the midst of doing this now, of course.

But, beyond being a "warehouse" that basically sells goods as a reseller for many companies across the globe -- with China thrown in for good measure -- what other value is there to the Wal-Mart existence? I've seen a wide swath of comments on Wal-Mart recently on the pros and cons of shopping there and working there. So, here's another chance to get your voice heard -- what is Wal-Mart's intrinsic value to the world beyond the "lowest price" mantra? Is there one or are there many reasons? If you're a WMT investor, customer or employee, chime in below and let me know what you think.

With the lauding Google is taking from customers and many in the investment community, there are those that are breaking the mold a bit and are calling Google out on what could be a huge problem for the search giant -- forms of online ad fraud. Well, as these two camps battle it out, GOOG shares closed down a bit to $381.54, a drop of $5.03 or 1.30%.

This last week has seen Google shares ride the proverbial roller coaster, and today was no different. Is Google really the enemy of the internet? Some folks think so, and there are good points behind this opinion. With Google's GBuy online payment and transaction service rumored to launch here in a few weeks, will Google give eBay's PayPal subsidiary a run for the money, if you will? This remains to be seen, but as Google loves to point out, it launches early and often -- then works the tweaks out later and polishes the product. I call it the infinite beta approach (much like Gmail, still in beta after two years).

In addition to Google's GBuy rumor and the launch of Google Spreadsheet last week, the "launch early and often" philosophy seems to be dead-on right now with the Mountain View folks. Can it keep this strategy up? With fat pockets and some of the smartest people on earth under its employ, my bet is that it can.

In this rather interesting article over at The Fool, the recent question of Google's impact on the internet is raked through the sifting sands of detailed discussion -- with some interesting observations. To those who are GOOG investors, you should be keeping a close eye on not only Google's activities, but the world's response to those activities, including the criminal world, so to speak.

While Google insiders dropping shares all over the place, does this signal anything? No, in my opinion -- it's normal diversification of holdings at scheduled intervals. Of course, that's the boilerplate answer given many times when insiders sell shares in large amounts. It's also good not to have all your eggs in one basket, or even two baskets, according to investment professionals.

Is Google really killing the internet? Sure, it seems everyone hates a big winner (what else is new), but the entire fraudulent industries cropping up and around Google's highly-successful AdSense and AdWords programs -- where it derives almost all its revenue -- are going to need a huge amount of attention from Google before the problems are so far out of hand that Google will not be able to catch up. Even Google can't man-handle legions of hucksters wanting to make a quick buck.

I'd like to know what all those sellers are thinking. Really! I mean, look at this chart. There we have it, down down and more down. MSFT is now at its 52-week low -- in fact, the stock hasn't been this low since October 4, 2002. I know! Today, the stock closed at $23.17, down 3.5%. It's now trading 15% below its high last week. Ouch. Guess everyone does believe Gartner's report about Vista delays.

Those who are selling right now? In my opinion, it's irrational depression. Why sell at the low? Panic, I suppose, but it seems highly, um, foolish. Tim Beyers, he who is Motley Foolish but not, you know, foolish, agrees. He argues that, even if you buy the idea that Microsoft might be taking second fiddle to Google (the Evil-Empire-come-lately), it's still a good company to own. After all, they are rife with cash-ola and they absolutely, totally dominate the average laptop. Come on now, look around you at the coffee shop. How many laptops don't have Windows-based software?

Unless you're tapping away at my favorite worker-owned coffee collective (where everyone either has an iBook or a built-from-scratch Linux geek-machine), the answer is: few. If I owned Mr. Softee right now, I'd be holding. And if I owned a pile full of cash right now, I'd be buying. There may be more down. But I'd bet at least some of my children's future on the long-term up.

Apple Computer had a nice run today, gaining $1.21, or nearly 2%, to close at $69.36. Investors were excited about future prospects for the company after today's annual shareholders meeting (news story; blog post). Plus, investors in general were excited today that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke indicated interest rate hikes may have run their course.

But at 6:45 p.m., Apple shares were down 31 cents -- most likely because investors didn't like the looks of Microsoft's earnings. That stock is down 6.5% in after hours trading. Yikes!

I visited DigStock to see what the most popular stories were and found this one from the Motley Fool: "What Happens If the Market Collapses?" Catchy title right?

I mention it here is because the author uses Apple as one of two stocks that define risk. He believes Apple's current stock price is based on positive events that haven't happened yet. He worries that investors  are overly exposed if things don't go as planned in Cupertino.

But wait a minute, I say. Isn't every stock price based on what investors expect to happen in the future? And isn't the risk that you could be right half the fun of investing?

(AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

In this Motley Fool article, the point is made that 10 percent of the interactive revenue at CNET networks -- the geeky news source for all-things-tech, came from Google. But, it could have been much higher if targeted placement of Google's advertising was more of a focus. CNET, listen up and take note.

This seems to be a forgone conclusion, as non-targeted advertising can be like throwing your money down the river. In the first days of television, this is how it was. In 2006, the tools exist -- online better than any medium -- to target and customize your advertising to make it as close to 100 percent relevant to your audience as possible. Google has figured this out for the large part on its network, which explains its billions in revenue each quarter and a share price that's sitting comfortably in the stratosphere.

As a longtime user of both eBay and social software, they seem a logical pair to me. eBay is, after all, known for its vibrant community and the fact that people do trust each other with vital details like their home addresses! (Not to mention, their cash.) Alyce Lomax of the Motley Fool, though, is a bit shocked that eBay would pony up its own cash to invest in Meetup, where people (yikes!) decide to meet first online, and second in person.

Perhaps I'm a bit taken aback only because the vast majority of my current friends would only be imaginary if it weren't for social networking online through blogs, craigslist, and (yes, even) eBay. I'm personally offended by Lomax's opinion that a $2 million investment in Meetup might, somehow, connect eBay with the unsavory underbelly of the net.

Not so! eBay and Meetup are a logical match; both have staked their life on the fact that people, deep down, are worth trusting no matter where you met them. And what better place to find people who share your love of Barbie dolls (new in box) or Lensbabies or your stay-at-home mom lifestyle than eBay and Meetup?

"At 17 times sales and a P/E of 74, I think GOOG is priced to perfection - and then some", writes Stephen Ellis of motleyfool.com. Well, maybe so - those levels (2005 levels) look pretty swell for a plus-$400 per share mover and shaker. The one thing I agree with on Mr. Ellis' analysis is that Google (GOOG) wants to dive into markets it can conquer and expand in, and then make money at it later (my emphasis).

Google has the wherewithal and pockets to go into areas where it can flourish, and just not be a "me too" company in the space where many of its competitors like to play. That said, it can take a longer-term outlook and plan on how to monetize the market it's in later on - and they have already demonstrated this in their history. If Google can be the de-facto advertising company on every desktop (PC or even TV), it's reach will be unparalleled in the communications industry. And that's exactly where they are headed, as stealthily as ever.