Okay, here is an absolutely brilliant idea. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. According to this blurb at The Hollywood Reporter, News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) is interested in doing a sequel to the classic 1987 film Wall Street.

Some of you younger investors out there might not be familiar with the movie, but perhaps you're familiar with the now-famous quote "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." It was uttered by the loathsome Gordon Gekko, whose alliterative name almost oozes corporate scandal and villainy. That character was played by Michael Douglas. Wall Street was directed by Oliver Stone and it portrayed the evil side of capitalism, replete with insider trading and share-price manipulation. It's considered a classic, iconic fictional snapshot of the current zeitgeist at the time: the only thing that mattered was upward mobility and accumulation of as much net worth as conceivable without consideration for the little guy. It came out around the time of the '87 market crash, so it had that going for it.

This is why News Corp. needs to fast-track the project. According to this source from May of last year, a sequel to Wall Street was already in the works. Obviously, the fact that The Hollywood Reporter mentioned the project this week means that execs at Fox feel that the timing for a sequel is approaching an optimal point. In fact, they really should try to get it out into the marketplace as quickly as they can, and hopefully with Michael Douglas reprising his role as Gekko (Douglas' return is not set in stone at this point). Not only could the movie gross a decent amount at the box office, but think of the synergy potential here.

News Corp. is fighting a battle with General Electric's (NYSE: GE) CNBC as we speak. The Fox Business Channel wants to take away as many viewers as possible from the stock-market network. Problem is, CNBC is a very powerful brand in its arena. Of course, that doesn't deter the pit bulls at Fox. If you had to describe the media company with only one word, that word would, by necessity, be a hyphenate: ultra-competitive. In fact, Fox Business Channel recently slammed BloggingStocks' own Jim Cramer in a recent promo (see a piece on this subject by Zac Bissonnette).

CNBC star Maria Bartiromo and I share a birthday, and I love a good scandal, so I follow her religiously. Maria is fun because she's both gorgeous and cute, smart and sexy. And then there's the strange case of Todd Thomson (the Citigroup exec who fell so in love with Maria that he flagrantly violated ethics, and common sense, just to spend time with her). She's also fun because her nickname is "Money Honey," and what's more: she's applied for a trademark for the phrase! Delicious.

Well, she might have to move fast to use the phrase before she loses the IP to a new generation of money honeys (money honeyettes?). News Corp. (NYSE: NWS)'s Fox Business News has a bevy of beauties dishing up the news on the stock market and the economy: Liz Claman, Dagen McDowell, Jenna Lee, Alexis Glick. Ben Stein wants to know, where did they all come from? His analysis, that finance is both boring and inscrutable, and that men would rather get this boring, inscrutable and (largely) completely irrelevant news from beautiful women, is certainly sensible.



But there's an undercurrent in his story that has me troubled, and though I think that he's right in many aspects of his analysis (it's certainly true that more men watch financial news than women), I'm peeved that he never wonders whether the financial world has just been extremely sexist and is only just now starting to let loose. I also find it odd that he doesn't wonder if there were financially savvy women being excluded from business journalism until now. (His "where did they all come from" question makes it seem as if they sprung from the head of Lou Dobbs like Athena.)

Whither Money Honeys? Here's my thought: