Investors frequently like to chase "hot stocks." While not based on fundamentals, momentum investing does sometimes work as stocks that are "working today" frequently "work tomorrow" as well.

So, as 2008 is 1/6th done, it's time to look back at the highfliers from 2007 and see where they're trading today. As usual, the analysts at Bespoke Investment Group have some good data and charts for us.

In a post, titled "How the Best Have Done," Bespoke analyzes the best performing U.S. stocks of 2007 and tracks them into 2008. The results:

• First Solar Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR), 2007's best performer, is down 21.86% year to date. See BloggingStock's Aaron Katsman's article on why he shorted this stock into the New Year.
  
• The second best, Onyx Pharma Inc. (NASDAQ: ONXX), is down 49.51%.

While some solar stocks are down big in 2008 after a huge run-up in 2007, the big winners are heavily concentrated in materials, agriculture, and energy. BPZ Resources Inc. (AMEX: BZP) is the stock on the list that has done the best in 2008 -- rising another 44% so far this year.

Zack Miller is the managing editor of IsraelNewsletter.com and a former equity analyst for a leading multinational hedge fund.

Ted Allrich is the founder of The Online Investor and author of Comfort Zone Investing: Build Wealth And Sleep Well At Night. In this weekly column, he offers advice to investors who are just getting started.

I saw an article on the best performing stocks of 2007. Very helpful if you read it in January ... of last year. Doesn't do any good this year if you're looking to buy stocks. In fact, those stocks should probably be avoided just because they had strong gains.

Here's the deal: stocks that outperform in one year will most likely underperform the next. That's because whatever made them hot has been factored into the price, or the "hot" factor has cooled. For example, when a biotech stock announces it has approval from the FDA to sell a drug, the stock goes way up ... for a while. Then investors dig in and determine exactly what the market for the drug is, how much of the drug will sell at what price, the ability to management to deliver the drug, etc. There is a limit to how much the drug will make the company. When cooler heads prevail, and those numbers are crunched by many investors, the selling starts. Most "hot" stocks will outrun their true value because emotions take over. Greed grabs the wheel and drives. Conversely, stocks crash much lower than their true value when the news is bad because fear takes over, and common sense flies out the window.

Many of you know that I have been writing about Crocs (NASDAQ: CROX) since March of this year. I have been a bull on Crocs since the IPO in February 2006. The stock has been a homerun for many investor--and the nightmare of the short-sellers. The company has exceeded expectations quarter-in and quarter-out since the IPO. I have written that Crocs is a full-blown phenomenon and has the potential to one day challenge Nike (NYSE: NKE) as king of the hill. With all that said, I am moving my price target on Crocs from $80-85 to $100 within 12 months. Why?

Crocs has established, since its early days ( about 5 years ago), a global distribution model. Not only is the company taking advantage of the weak US dollar, but it has seeded its products all through Europe and Asia. The shoes carry a higher price point and when converted back into dollars, it bolsters its already high gross margins of 60%. The margins for Crocs are worthy of a case study at any major MBA program. For a young, growth company to post up operating margins in the 27-30% range is nearly unheard of. Young companies need to spend heavily in sales and marketing and in research and development all at the near-term expense of its operating margins--or pre-tax profits. The amazing fact is Crocs IS spending at the proper levels to develop its brand and marketshare and IT STILL PUTS UP THESE MASSIVE OPERATING MARGINS!

On tonight's MAD MONEY on CNBC, Jim Cramer said the best company he has in the food space is Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. (NYSE: CMG). He says this is a regional to national story that beat estimates and raised guidance last night. Cramer noted that the stock hasn't even seen upgrades after a 12% gain today on the better performance and Cramer said he thinks Chipotle will go up Thursday again. He interviewed Chipotle's CFO on the show.

Cramer asked about food costs being up..... costs are higher and theirs grew 100 basis points, but they have food integrity and solid contracts. The rest of the P&L statement is very efficient and they can offset some of that. Cramer's concern is on the slowness of the original buildout and then changing to rapid growth..... CFO said they are growing based on real estate availability and the quality of managers they can get. Managers are coming from inside now and they can do better now than earlier. How do they incentivize managers? Elite managers are bonused on sales growth above expectations above plan plus they get $10K per group leader that gets turned into a manager. As far as feeling like a chain....CFO said he doesn't want it to feel like a chain and they want to personalize the experience.

Chipotle is on a tear, that's a fact. Shares climbed nearly another 2% to yet another high, above $100.00 after Cramer talked this up after-hours. My only concern here is that at $3.25 billion in market cap with 640 restaurants and 110 to 120 restaurants scheduled to open in 2007, the value here is pretty high. If the company beats 2007 estimates by 20% it trades at 50-times earnings. On a per store value assuming these all come online that generates a $4,276,315.78 value per store after the store openings, and as of today's 640 restaurants in operation assuming no add-ons you would have a franchise value per store of $5,078,125.00 per store. The good news for growth and speculative investors is that in all fairness, these cautionary metrics I calculated won't come into play for some time and there is an unbelievable amount of growth this chain can generate now that it is out on its own.

Jon Ogg can be reached at jonogg@247wallst.com; he does not own securities in the companies he covers.

In October 2000, Amey Stone -- then Associate Editor of BusinessWeek Online and now of BloggingStocks -- co-wrote an article about the KREMEY (Krispy Kreme Euphoria Yardstick) which compared the fate of $5,400, invested in 10 high profile dot-com stocks, with Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) which went public in April 5, 2000. Since then, the 10 stocks have tumbled 44%, while Krispy Kreme is down 23%.

Krispy Kreme is losing more money, according to The Wall Street Journal [subscription required]. The company makes great-tasting doughnuts. And since I was quoted in that October 2000 article I've learned more about how the human body metabolizes doughnuts. It initially releases a rush of insulin to digest all the sugar and carbohydrates in the doughnut. Following that sugar rush, people get listless and hungry.

This metabolic trajectory mirror's that of Krispy Kreme's stock chart. But since February 2005 when there were fears the company would file for bankruptcy, the stock has had a nice recovery. Meanwhile, of the 10 dot-com stocks on that April 5, 2000 list, three no longer exist as publicly-traded stocks -- AOL, eToys, and iVillage.com -- and the remaining seven are down an average of 44% -- as detailed below.

It seems that everywhere I go, I find even more evidence that most investors should just buy and hold low-cost index funds. According to a piece in today's New York Times:

Stocks have been a great investment in the last 80 years, with an average return of about 10 percent a year. But have investors in the stock market done as well as stocks? Surprisingly, the answer is no. The average dollar invested in the stock market in those years has earned only about 8.6 percent a year.

According to a new paper from Ilia Dichev, the reason is simple: Most investors buy in at the tops, and sell at the bottoms. This is true, almost by definition. New highs require more money pouring in, and stocks plummet when investors rush for the exits.

Remember the early 2000's, when record money flowed into red hot internet funds, right before they tanked? While those funds may have shown impressive performance over a 5-year period, so much of the money came in at the top that the average investor's return was actually quite dismal.

The article concludes with a brilliant warning: "Trying to outguess the market is a sucker's game."

So what's an investor to do? Set up an account with a low-cost index fund, and invest whenever you can. Never try to time the market and enjoy the long-term performance that the market is almost certain to provide.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. (NYSE:KKD) is gaining friends on Wall Street.

CIBC World Markets analyst John S. Glass upgraded the shares to "sector performer" from "sector underperformer" and set a $13 price target, saying the stock was "poised to reenter the investible universe," according to the Associated Press.

People already think that the donut chain will come back. Its shares have soared almost 54 percent over the past year. They gained 2 percent today and were last trading at $10.38.

Doubts about the chain linger. One long-time critic of Krispy Kreme, MarketWatch columnist Herb Greenberg, remains as skeptical as ever. He convincingly argues that the company's turnaround plan is based on strategies that haven't worked before such as increasing sales to convenience stores and adding new varieties.

Moreover, the battles over trans fats doesn't help the chain. Donuts, in case you are completely clueless, are loaded with them. Krispy Kreme recently introduced a whole-wheat donut with 180 calories, to try and show customers that it at least thinks about nutrition. If whole-wheat donuts are in your dieting plan, perhaps you need a new plan. They also don't sound particularly yummy.