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.

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.

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.

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 stock market has taken some big hits lately with the Dow down 387 - still preaching calm and change certainly being the most notable sign of fear amid many down days. But why? Why the selling? Why the fear? The reason is so simple and cannot be stated more clearly than reminding you all of your childhood, playing with your friends, when all of a sudden someone yelled "Last one out is a rotten egg!"

Yes the story line is clear enough; we have all heard about sub-prime loans, Alt-A loans, falling home values, falling housing starts, shrinking liquidity, Federal deficits, higher oil prices, unsustainable foreign market growth, consumer demand coming to an end, and you can contribute a few more of your own boogie men to round out the list. These are all real issues our economy will have to contend with and I do not scoff at any of them. However, our economy has sustained itself though much worse and it bothers me when I see hyper market activity putting more money in the hands of brokers who make money when people are trading, whether it be up or down, they just like a higher volume of activity.

As the market reached ever new highs, we started hearing that things may have heated up too much. Sure they heated up to much, but volume started to slow also as people became more cautious and volume also slows down during summer vacation months. Slowing volume (less trading) is no good for Wall Street. So if we are not trading up then we should be trading down and that is exactly what we are hearing now and sure enough volume is back up and fees are being collected.

I do most of my transactions online on my own, but I put a little money in an account with a full service broker friend of mine, because he is a friend, and a good sounding board for some of my ideas. Sure enough he calls the other day to discuss what is happening in the market, specifically some great 'put' opportunities. After going through the numbers I asked him if he was doing anything now -- what was he investing in? He said he was not, he was keeping his cash for now waiting for an even better buying opportunity later.

This bothered me! Here he was suggesting his client (me) buy when he personally thought it was better to wait! I hate this, yet it is so common. I know my friend felt awkward when I confronted him about this, but, I let it be, and he gets it, because we have discussed this before. In his defense, he was bringing to my attention something I might want to know about, and would do, that most investors would not -- naked puts. The majority of the time my friend is not so much a broker as he is a financial adviser, and helps less knowledgeable folks set up diversified investment plans. For this I would recommend him.

For stock picking, I would not recommend anyone that is not a household name and those are few and far between but my "pals" Warren and Carl are not too bad. If you are afraid of being the rotten egg, or more importantly, have invested in questionable stocks, than by all means adjust your portfolio so that you can sleep better at night. There are plenty of good buys right now. It is not important if the market is up or down it is important to invest for the long term. The last one out is not the rotten egg, the short term thinkers are the rotten eggs. It is also worth re-reading Who says the stock market is too cheap? for some market perspective.

Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find more potential opportunities and verify my track record as well - INCLUDING ANY BAD CALLS.

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

Barron's (subscription required) has been hyping, promoting, advertising (your choice) and "discounting" it's October 22 conference "The Art of Successful Investing" for weeks and months and I think it is just one more very expensive seminar. For a 'modest' $1,295.00 ($200 discount now available) you can go hear presentations by twelve of Wall Streets finest. Some of them are actually among Wall Streets finest, although I would not include all. You also should figure that since the conference is being held in New York that attending this event will cost you the entry fee again in food, transportation, lodging, and expenses -- probably even more. So unless you can wrangle the money out of your company expense account or government agency job it is not worth it.

They state in the advertisement that it is the "only opportunity to see and hear from these investing luminaries at one place at one time." I do not know why you would want to see them, the ad had their pictures, but as far as hearing their views, Barron's itself includes most of them in their annual round table. Their views are well known and hearing them altogether is apt to be as confusing as it is enlightening. If one is interested in their views they are all published in journals frequently. No doubt they are bright people and might have an insight or two but paying this kind of money is a waste. I would estimate that there is more free information available on the web these days than any seminar can offer. Every business page and every Internet site, plus the writings of Warren Buffett in the annual reports of Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) would be cheaper and a better use of time. The one exception is if you thought you could make some valuable business contact at this conference. Wandering the halls might be better than listening to the speeches. Finally if you must spend money, create your own financial library. The top 20 investment books of all time would cost you under $500.

Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find more potential opportunities and verify my track record as well.

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

If you are a regular reader of my blogs (like Ethan, who I quote below), you know I try to be accountable for my positions and try to share real experiences that I am going through in my investment world as well as I comment on things affecting the world of stocks and business in general. This week I posted: Frantic market: Retail up, retail down...who cares?, as the market darted up and down and back up. I think it is important to offer a sober perspective among all the noise. Most of what you hear is noise.

• Ethan wrote me: "Thank you for the rational non-exuberance blog on market forces. I do have to ask about the particular "crushed" housing market on home building companies as such for being the "Sell" and "Avoid" industry currently. While there is a rumor today about Buffett's bid for Hovanian Enterprise (HOV), do you personally see any value and fundamental still within the industry, to name a few stocks that do give dividends (DHI, PHM, LEN, CTX, KBH, MDC, BZH...)? My gut is Yes but it would contradict the market force and the continuing virus-spiraling down sub-prime mortgage situation that affects many other industries as well.

The short answer is yes. To paraphrase Warren Buffett and other value investors, you simply must buy stocks when the fear in the market (or a sector) reaches a crescendo.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but this is one of many silly comments that Peter Cohan received this week after posting Four reasons I'll never own an iPhone. I can assure our readers that quite the contrary, Peter and all of our bloggers are quite bright ... even when I disagree ... and even when there is an occasional error of fact. Over the past year the quality of writing has continually improved. Our editors work hard and we writers converse often during the day. Comments like these may suit some individuals relief of personal angst but educate no one; offer no reason except that the commenter sharply disagrees, and to me are basically worthless.

Last year I recall receiving conflicting comments about something I wrote. In three quick retorts, I was called a moron, then brilliant, then an idiot ... thankfully all of my antagonists had something more to say so that I could possibly learn something. This has been known to happen.

Interestingly, and at the risk of being called an idiot also, I happen to agree with Peter, that the iPhone is not a "must have", will be cheaper later, and as has been born out by those that chose to be "beta testers" this week end, many of their iPhones are currently very cool looking paper weights thanks to AT&T's poor preparation for the onslaught of activations required and not done.

Actually I have nothing against the iPhone specifically, I choose not to carry any type of PDA. I get no peace now and certainly do not want to become a slave to text messaging or the web, more than I am now. To me, a PDA is a long leash required by upper management to keep track of middle management.

Peace to all.

Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find more potential opportunities and verify my track record as well.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the vice president for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. Check out his other posts for BloggingStocks here.

Yes folks, that's what the man said, "You can make 10% profit a month using our system." He said it with a straight face in an infomercial, which was preceded by a station announcement that they are not responsible for the content or validity of the following program.

How about a statement that is more straight forward like, "The following presentation regarding the stock system you are about to see is full of crap! If you believe any of it you are a fool and deserve to lose your money."

For those of you who are not adept at math, if the claims made on this infomercial were true, a $10,000 nest egg would pass $50 billion midway through the 14th year and $80 bilion by the end of it, (passing Buffett and Gates) if you did not get bored with making money long before. Of course if you kept going you could pile up all the equity on planet Earth in less than one lifetime so you would have tremendous incentive to find life in another solar system somewhere that has a stock market so you could suck up all the equity on that planet too.

What if two people decided to use this system for any length of time, I fear the world would not be big enough for the both of them. But I take this too far. The snake oil salesman in the infomercial is the best evidence of the failings of his own system because he has not earned jack by using it himself, only by selling it. No one worth two cents would give him the time of day ... unless of course they were to serve him a notice -- like cease and desist.

I can't believe there is not a federal or state prosecutor somewhere that is chasing this guy and his fraudulent claims. I am sure there are lot of people like me that get burned up when we see someone taking advantage of people like this infomercial tries to do. I think after I finish this post I will write a letter to our attorney general about this. Perhaps there are some prosecutors reading this post that might shed some light on this subject and how these blatantly dishonest broadcasts can continue.

HAPPY FATHERS DAY!

Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find potential opportunities and verify my track record as well.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the vice president for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. Check out his other posts for BloggingStocks here.

On Friday June 1, 2007 Jon Ogg reported Cramer's sell block: Sell Charter and Apple - Yes sell Apple Inc (AAPL). Why? It's now a trading stock. He thinks you should sell right before the iPhone comes out, wait for a dip, and then buy it back. This is very stupid advice on many levels...or at least very funny for those with a sense of humor.

First, one must look at the tax implications of selling Apple and buying it back. It could end up that you will lose money if you have to pay taxes on short term gains. And those of us in California and other States with high taxes would still pay around 22.5% on long term gains. Therefore, if Cramer sees an opportunity to trade out and back in, it better leave room for making up the taxes and fees. How big a swing does Cramer envision? It would have to be 30% for the long term guys and maybe 40% for the short term investors to make this trade worth while. This is all highly speculative and no amount of homework will give you the answers you seek.

Second, what if Cramer is wrong and the stock does not dip or it only goes down 10% followed by a lateral period and then more upward movement? Then what do you do? Now you are playing a guessing game with a high probability of guessing wrong, and you will be unhappy you got left behind and paid the taxes too.

In fairness to Cramer, I happen to agree that it might be time to take something off the table and book some profits. However, it might be wiser to take those profits and put them into a better value, diversify and protect your earnings rather than try and get back into Apple again. There are plenty of wise investors that have been seeing some fluff in Apples current stock price and have been advising the same thing. Sell some, keep some, and limit the speculation.

Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find more potential opportunities and verify my track record as well.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the vice president for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. Check out his other posts for BloggingStocks here.

Every week there is plenty to write about that I find amusing or ironic in the business world or stock market, on and off our site. I missed the last couple of weeks not for lack of material but time. This week I must start with something old that just won't go away, Amazon.com (AMZN) which closed Friday at a share price of $73.24.

This week I posted the story Amazon - everyone gets it but me where I highlighted various Amazon stock metrics that made no sense whatsoever and pleaded with someone, anyone to explain them to me. Alas, not a soul chose to respond. And since I freely admitted "not getting it" I did not leave room for those that really have no explanation but like to tell me what an idiot I am. A decade old this company has a book value of less than 2 cents on the dollar and eeks out a profit margin of 1.77%. Yes, it's profits increased in the last quarter by 115% to everyone's surprise, however, a 1000% increase if somehow directly translated into Amazon's a book value would still leave it under 20 cents on the dollar - that's hysterical to me.

Since nobody volunteered any information to help me solve the riddle I did some homework myself and a friend at a major investment house gave me a hint that lead to Who owns Amazon.com - really? and a reminder that it is not the public pushing this stock to silly valuations. It may be insiders and major shareholders playing "a game of chicken" with investors shorting the stock, of which there are many. I think after the battle is over this stock is going back down.

In Fortune magazine, May 28, 2007 issue I came across Amazon's 7-year Itch where they actually make some comments similar to mine. After all this time and all the efficiencies of the Internet in relation to Amazon's business model, it is making a smaller profit margin than the brick and mortar retailers like Wal-Mart (WMT) and over the last seven years an investor would have made 3.1% on their money.

So this is no joke I would like to learn and so would other intrigued investors if someone has any answers.

Enjoy the day.

Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find more potential opportunities and verify my track record as well.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the vice president for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. Check out his other posts for BloggingStocks here.