Most people in the United States and for sure shareholders of losing companies have been railing against executive pay for many years. It is generally agreed the salaries, bonuses, stock options, deferred compensation, and retirement packages have become ridiculous and do not reflect anything other then the "good ol' boy network" operating at its worst.

Compensation committees substantiate their decisions in a fashion that outlines plausible deniability not merit, value or truth. They do not reflect shareholders, employees, or customers best interest. They reflect a tight knit group that has to pay and pay big so that they can get theirs in the next round.

This brings me to the National Basketball Association and its use of the salary cap. We just witnessed an NBA finals where the better team won (Boston Celtics in six games) and that is the nature of the game. It's five on five, the best player does not take every shot and the best player cannot defend the other team by himself.

A few days ago I posted Chasing Value: Valero -- when is a downgrade an upgrade? and since then I have become even more disturbed with our government and the stock analysts, as well as the companies they represent. Eitan Bernstein, an analyst with Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co downgraded his expectations for the major oil refiners Wednesday and lowered his price target for Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO) from $77 to $65.

How can this be? The stock was trading around $40 per share and closed Friday at $39.96. As a shareholder who has watched this stock go down, any signs of optimism have to be welcome I suppose, but what in the world is this guy saying. He is saying he has concerns about the sector, but believes VLO will be 61.5% higher this time next year any way!

This makes no sense. He can't be too concerned, can he? If you believed him you would buy all the VLO shares you could get hold of -- and so would he! Maybe he did? Or maybe he is trying to pump up the stock to help a big client? Or maybe he is clueless and does not know what he is talking about? What might his e-mails reveal?

Anyone can predict anything, and they have a right to be an idiot, but what responsibility does he have to eat his own cooking? VLO started the year near a high that is between Bernstein's old and new projections, and I for one have hopes of it rebounding, but I do not have the level of certainty to broadcast such an exact figure. What is the purpose?

The change in his projections of 15.5% is indicative of the silliness of this analysis. We have seen this before and will see it again ... so buyer beware.

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. DISCLOSURE: I currently own shares of VLO.

.

Regular readers know that I enjoy Barron's Weekly (subscription required) one of the best business journals around and that it has provoked some of my better investment ideas. However, even Barron's can fall prey to bad or incomplete reporting, (as if there were a difference), as they benefit from market activity and can stretch an idea too far, becoming all too common.

Barron's incomplete and common story was in the June 9, 2008 issue titled "Timing is Everything". What I find common, and thus objectionable, is the fact that they choose to tout Appel Asset Management's like so many brokerage houses do numerous funds (for the fees), ignoring basic tidbits like said fees, and taxes. The Appels seem to do an admirable job for their investors but they do not beat the indices, so who cares?

Their simple strategy is to invest in the two broadly based hot ETF's, counting on momentum lasting more than one quarter, and switch them out each quarter. This they claim takes only an hour of work every three months, how lovely. In the story they state "From 1979 through 2007, Marvin Appel would have (emphasis mine) returned 16% a year, before fees, better than the 15% a year performance of the Russell 2000 Value Index". They also leave out how long the approach has actually been in place.

Do stock market analysts take creative writing or are they the ultimate bandwagon guys? The lame information provided by stock market analysts keep providing more fodder for my rants. Last Friday -- Lehman raised Anadarko Petroleum (NYSE: APC) to Overweight from Equal Weight citing relative valuation and strong U.S. gas exposure....well duh!

I have ranted and raved about the poor performance of most analysts for almost the entire time I have been writing for BloggingStocks but the wonders never cease. The stock is at a 52 week high and now they take notice. I don't have their "training" yet I was pushing APC at $40, its low. It closed at $78.15 near its all time high and now Lehman makes the call. To quote a 90 year old Wall Streeter when asked to share what he had learned from his 70 years in the market "Nobody knows nuttin". The following is the two year chart for APC.

The Motley Fool ranted in a similar vain when they discussed a study by Patrick Cusatis and J. Randall Woolridge of Pennsylvania State University that studied 20 years' worth of published earnings estimates made by Wall Street industry analysts. They discovered that analysts were consistently overly optimitsic and that practically speaking, you should ratchet them down to the tune of around 40%; or you'll be sorry.

This week I received a long rant from Dan, one our very astute readers. I extracted the following from what he wrote:

Yesterday I received an offer to "Cut My Indebtedness" by shifting over to a bi-weekly mortgage payment, tied to my paydays. The "offer" goes on to show how much I will save over the term of the loan by enrolling in their plan. The kicker is (& here is a reference to an old Country song I remember from years ago, "The Large Print Giveth, What the Small Print Taketh Away") the small print. There is a $9.00 per month "participation fee". A fee to participate? ...my rant. THEY CAN"T STOP YOU FROM MAKING ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS.

This has happened to me as well, and if you have lived in your home for a few years or more, it is likely you received a similar offer. Dan raised many valid points in his longer version, but the three main points are that you should focus on the small print, there should not be a fee for paying down your loan, and finally if you have a loan that allows prepayments of the principal amount you can make interim principal payments any time you want.

One feature of bi-weekly payments that Dan overlooks or fails to distinguish, and that homeowners should recognize, is that they reduce the amount of interest you pay over the life of the loan without additional "monthly" principal contributions. That is a real savings, and the bank feels the service of processing this has a cost to them and a value to you. On most loans, the savings of many thousands of dollars would greatly exceed the fee, and the fee does not increase on larger loan amounts. Perhaps it is their presentation of the offer that appears deceitful.

Here is a detailed explanation of bi-weekly payments. The example they give you indicates a savings of almost $58,000 interest on a $75,000 loan. Fees or no fees it provides substantial benefit tothe borrower.

Happy Mothers Day

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.

In this month' Money Magazine story, Calming words for troubled times the final words were by Deena Katz, Chairman, Evensky & Katz Wealth Management, who shared this "My mom always said, if you're going to do it, don't worry; if you're going to worry, don't do it."

Are you a worrier? Do you fret over everything? Can you undo those things you have already done that you are worried about? Sometimes it's tough. But maybe you should consider it. How does that apply to the stock market or investing in general. From that perspective it is very simple. Do not invest in anything that will keep you up at night.

While this may be good advice for most aspects of investing there is one time that it might cost you. When stocks are rising few people are worried. When stocks are falling everyone's worry factor rises. As their worry factor rises they tend to become sellers. This may relieve one of their worries but it also may relieve them of their money because it contradicts two other old bits of wisdom.

"Buy low and sell high" is a common refrain said tongue in cheek because a bell does not ring announcing the highs and lows. However, even 'my pal Warren' would advise that "investors should buy on fear and sell on greed". So then the modified version of mom's advice melding it with market realities is that you should be worried when others are not and remain calm when everyone else is panicking.

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.

The following story came to me this week from a reader who's sentiments may be shared by a lot folks. If I am the last one on the planet to have seen it and it has been circulating around the web for a long time, please excuse my redundancy.

The story pokes fun at business bureaucracy, mismanagement, corporate fairness, employee relations and more. Finding this type of story more often in your in-box displays a kind of recession fatigue and growing cynicism.

A foreign company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the foreign company won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the foreign team had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised that too many people were steering the boat while not enough people were rowing.

My collegue Zac Bissonnette posted a story about Societe Generale, the French bank that suffered a $7 billion loss at the hands of a 30-year-old trader. He points out that according to French law, the bank could not fire this big time loser without a formal explanation of the problems they have with his performance. I guess they have no dollar limit. Zac confessed to wanting to be a fly on the wall and I went into my Saturday Night Live alter-ego adding the following:

• You don't need to be a fly on the wall Zac. You know what will be said:

"We find that your performance over the last year has been quite extroadinary. We have never seen or heard of anyone losing $7 billion that was not a government official. This is so far outside of our expectatations that we feel we must put you on notice that should you lose another $7 billion we will be forced to ask for your resignation. However, you should not worry because, as is blatantly obvious the government would probably jump at the opportunity to retain someone of your experience. You would need no training and could start to lose money on the first day."

Several weeks have passed and I still can't help thinking about how tough it is to invest in individual stocks and how many ways there are to be blind-sided. When the Board of Citigroup (NYSE: C) finally asked for the resignation of CEO Chuck Prince at an emergency Sunday meeting, after the company announced that an earlier released figure of a $6.5 billion write-down was actually going to be $11 billion, were they surprised of just disgusted?

Was that the last straw or were they in the dark as to the magnitude of the losses. As investors we have to consider a vast array of issues to determine if a company is worthy of investment. I know most people do not, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say they do. So you look at the sales and services offered, the quality of management, the various performance metrics like P/E, P/S, P/B, ROE cash flow, debt and more. You may look at the macro economic environment, interest rates, even the weather but in the end what do you know?

After you analyze everything you can get your hands on you are still just giving it your best shot (in the dark) and hope for the best. If the Board of Citigroup can't keep track of it's own company, its management structure, its risk analysis and it's exposure to major market conditions that will greatly affect the company, how are we supposed to?

Just one more good reason to stay diversified. If you are not, you should give that as much consideration as you do any individual investment. Was the Citigroup Board really in the dark? I don't know, but you should not allow yourself to fall prey to their folly.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who is just a little miffed at the way that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and his elite staff have chosen to handle our economy. My feelings fall pretty much in line with those of investment genius Jim Rogers. I listened to a short interview with him today on public radio. He pretty much confirmed my belief that the dollar could be going the way of the dinosaurs. For crying out loud, the Fed dumped about four tons of greenbacks on the financial system Thursday. Bank leaders such as Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) aren't generating enough profit to meet the demands of operation and to please the shareholders at the same time! What's the Fed going to do about the 80% profit decline at Wachovia Corp. (NYSE: WB)? A lower basis point for bank borrowing won't even scratch the surface of the cash shortfall. In fact, the lower the basis point the more it injures the bank's ability to make a profit on the loans that we need right now to salvage some home ownership scenarios from the mortgage debacle. How much more evidence do you need to realize we are living in a time of disastrous fiscal policy? We're lining up to make 1929 look like a cake walk.

This one obviously became "A Bridge Too Far" fetched, as Alaska Abandons Infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere' included in last year's budget as part of the traditional pork-barrel spending that goes on in Washington -- usually following long speeches about trimming the fat.

There is probably nothing more universally consistent in a campaign speech than the promise to cut federal spending. Of course politicians are equally consistent on failing to do so once they are in office. However, in the case of this infamous bridge to an Island of a few hundred residences, the political heat, under the proverbial magnifying glass, was too much.

The public outrage and direct lobbying from various budget watchdog groups and with the support of Senator Tom Coburn, Representative Jeff Flake, and Representative Mark Kirk, the State of Alaska has officially abandoned plans to pursue the infamous Gravina Bridge. Money is still earmarked for the state, but the recently elected new governor decided to drop the project.

The University Southern California (USC) had such a good recruiting season under super coach Pete Carrol that one of their star running backs transferred out because he thought he would not get enough playing time, and they have been favored since the end of last season. USC is no longer undefeated --- UGH! Yesterday they were upset by unranked, 40.5 point underdog, Stanford University -- AT HOME -- double UGH!! This ended a 35 game home winning streak and a 24 game Pac-10 conference streak.

Last week against Washington University they pulled out a squeaker after committing 16 penalties -- read that as "freshman mistakes," although not all caused by freshman. Those of us delusional alumni rationalizing the close game bantered about how good a team you would have to be to win a game where you had to overcome 16 penalties. Now USC loses to Stanford (my father-in-law's Alma mater) at home after supposedly spending all week at practice refocusing. Not that all freshman are bad, Stanford's freshman quarterback Tavita Pritchard, in his first start played the game of his life.

So why is this relevant to business:

• Trying to guess what something is worth and predicting the future, like point spreads and rankings, is hard without the advantage of a track record.
• Attempting to manage an organization that is constantly changing by throwing together a lot of new people from different places (or enterprises) can create havoc, integration problems and lack of efficiency.
• An abundance of talent and potential can be a detriment if it does not perform as a cohesive unit. Teams win, not individuals, and in USC's case all the individual talent in the world does not seem to be meshing.

Now compare this to the exclusive club of senior (Christian Coalition) republicans that met this week to discuss their displeasure with their presidential candidates. They are so unhappy with their choices because none of the candidates are pounding the pro-life/anti-abortion drum, or the family values drum, or the school voucher drum, or several other drums, that they are actually making noise about opting for a third party. This would a freshman mistake of the highest order!

It is no surprise that we at BloggingStocks are no less prone to grab a headline with sexual provocation to increase our hit rate. That we did when we posted a story on Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) and their unhappiness with a young women's attire, our most popular story of the week. Having such success, like every other tabloid in the country, we could not resist a story (or two or three) about a young Disney (NYSE: DIS) starlet having some obscure personal photos, including a nude, pandered on the web.

News is news and there is no hiding from the headlines. However, I write this story almost in a self-referential manner with self conscious feelings, as well because I can't write it without being accused of the same malady, so I feel some confusion about the issue. For this reason I decided not to refer to any of the other stories and not to link to any photos, sorry to disappoint some of you -- search elsewhere.

This week at an Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) event and a follow-up press release Steve Jobs masterfully filled shareholder and consumer psyche with un-quelled anticipation about new iPhone and iPod product developments. Not to disappoint anyone, he did release information about a totally unanticipated huge development, a $200 price cut in the high-end 8 gigabyte iPhone. This reduces the retail price from $599 to $399 after only two months.

The screams from the "beta testers" that had to be the first ones on their block to own an iPhone were so loud that the actual discussion about the products themselves took a back seat. Surprised (maybe) and embarrassed marketing genius Jobs decided to announce a $100 rebate redeemable for merchandise at Apple stores to those angry customers who felt foolish and betrayed. In addition the stock took a hit, although in the long run the one day movement is irrelevant, in my opinion.

On Friday my colleague Jonathan Berr posted Henry Blodget blasts Mary Meeker's Google (GOOG) math. In this story he outlined a slight difference of opinion. Actually a 1000%, regarding the potential revenue and earnings of YouTube. Since my own attempts at guessing what Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) is worth (Serious Money: What IS Google worth? One year later...) proved more accurate than either of them, and since total stock value is of more importance, I had to comment.

Here are some real important numbers: If Google earns $18 per share over the next twelve months, its forward P/E is around 28. If they continue to make any progress with YouTube revenue at somewhere in between our battling pundits and hold market share, Google might be worth $600 in 12 months. Not the stuff investors are dreaming of but pretty darn good.

If Google gains market share, adds any new revenue streams or improves its margins, it could reach 5% to10% above these figures. I do not believe this will happen because Google will not be able to achieve a return on investment for new business equal to that of its original idea. In addition, any new acquisitions, and there will be some, will not improve margins either.

To verify my track record, including bad calls, read Chasing Value and Serious Money.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm.