So you've been on the job for three years but the boss won't cut you a raise. Is that your problem, friend? Perhaps the solution to your problem rests in your own hands. If you can prove you're deserving of a raise in salary and you take the appropriate steps to get one, an increase in taxable income just might be in your future. Take a look at the following informative video to gain some insight on effective paycheck building strategy. If you employ the tactics discussed in this video, and you still can't get a raise, it might be time to seek a new employer. I believe that you have every right to expect appropriate compensation for exemplary job performance, even if that means getting it from a new company.

Most investors know that certain days of the week are better for stocks than others. Over the past 10 years, for example, the S&P 500 index has fared best on Wednesdays and worst on Tuesdays, with median returns of 0.10% and 0.00%, respectively. These differences, of course, are relatively small. But some rather more noteworthy divergences crop up when you break down the patterns by sector.

In that case, Friday happens to be the best day of the week, both in absolute terms and relative to the market, when the median daily performance of all the various S&P 500 economic sectors are taken into account. The winning group? Energy, with an average return of 0.21% and 0.17%, respectively. Coming in a close second, in nominal terms at least, is the information technology group, with a gain of 0.21% on Wednesdays and 0.20% on Mondays.

As far as which day of the week is the worst for any particular sector, there are two contenders for the crown. In absolute terms, Monday has been the laggard, with the energy sector declining by an average of 5 basis points over the course of the past decade. In terms of relative performance, however, Wednesdays are at the bottom, dragged down by the -0.12% median return of financial shares.

According to a new study of company leaders, CEOs tend to approach business risks more prudently when compensated with material pay packages as a larger percentage of overall compensation, instead of a heavy dose of stock options.

From one point of view, this makes little sense: Many (many) executives perform just to the point of making stock prices rise quarter after quarter. After all, would you want to buy options with cheap strike prices only to sell them later for massive profit -- company long-term performance be damned? Due to the greedy nature of many CEOs, this situation seems head-on. The only problem here is that this study refutes that belief.

It concluded that CEOs who are granted large numbers of stock options as a main form of compensation are more likely to make riskier decisions with often negative repercussions on company stock prices. This also makes sense: With more stock options on the table, the risk-taker mentality may come out more for leaders-- who ascend to their positions usually by taking risks in the first place.

The only problem is that most of those risks end in bitter disappointments instead of glowing results. Although stock options are geared toward motivating executives and middle managers to improve a company's future performance, the study's authors argue that that form of compensation is not all that effective in increasing a company's overall results. Moral of the story: liberal stock option granting is a good idea, but just don't overload comp packages with them.

When Yahoo (NASDAQ: YHOO) co-founder Jerry Yang returned to the CEO role this past summer, he gave investors and watching employees a "100-day review" speech that basically gave Yang time to study, assess and form solutions on getting the internet behemoth back on track for higher growth levels and ensuring it wasn't losing ad revenue to the competition.

Well, that 100 days is now nearly over with, and even the few acquisitions (BlueLithium and Zimbra) that Yahoo! has made recently have not quenched the irrational desire of analysts who aren't satisfied until immediate results happen. This is, of course, so unrealistic it's laughable. Any analyst should know drastic changes take time to work, aside from massive layoffs that can immediately affect a company's finances. This is not the case with Yahoo!, which is trying desperately to keep up with competitor Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) in the space for online advertising.

Although Yang has professed that nothing within the company is a "sacred cow," industry watchers may be already impatient in waiting for the company to somehow reinvent its business to capture more growth that Google appears to be hauling in by the truckload at the moment. Nothing so far looks like the "radical surgery" that many pundits probably thought would happen, and with Google set to deliver Q3 results this Thursday, the pressure cooker may become even more intense soon.

Coca-Cola Co (NYSE: KO) will be reporting its first quarter 2007 earnings before the market opens next Tuesday (April 17). The last time the company reported earnings was back on Valentine's Day, when it was able to put up better than expected earnings for its fourth quarter 2006. At that time, the company posted earnings of $0.52, which came in higher than analyst estimates of $0.50. Sweet.

Coca-Cola has a strong history of beating Wall Street's expectations, so it would come as no surprise to me if the company is able to beat its numbers again this quarter. In fact, to find the last time that Coke was unable to post better than expected earnings, you would have to go all the way back to April 16, 2003 when it matched estimates for its first quarter 2003 report.

Poor Bill Miller. After seeing his Cal Ripken-esque 15-year streak of beating the market end in 2006, he's trailing the S&P 500 again in 2007. His investors at the $21 billion Legg Mason Value Trust were probably content to laugh off the end of his run, but another off-year in 2007 could raise some eyebrows. Is Bill Miller finished, some will ask? Or, can he make a comeback amid mounting pressure to deliver returns to shareholders?

When asked about whether his amazing run was just a fluke, Miller replied by pointing out that the odds of beating the market every year from 1991 to 2005 are about 1 in 2.3 million. "So there was probably some skill involved... On the other hand, something with odds of 1 in 2.3 million happens to about 130 people per day in the U.S., so you never know."

I wouldn't give up on Bill Miller just yet. He's one of the greatest investing minds ever, and I would look for him to regain his form. And if he doesn't? Well then he just be another member of the 90% of mutual fund managers who don't beat the market.

Back on October 23, 2006 investment guru Jim Cramer came out strongly against Bare Escentuals (NASDAQ: (GS) BARE). I pitted my opinion against Cramers and "let it ride". I've just finished doing a cursory check on Bare Escentuals to see how they have fared. Suffice it to say, I hope no one sold their BARE shares based on Cramers advice.

The chart attached herein shall provide the whole story. My words are really not needed. Besides, I'm just a dude living up here in the woods and making cabinet panels for a living. What could I possibly know about investing? Bare Escentuals just went public in September of this year. Their performance thus far appears healthy to me.

The two stocks that Cramer liked in place of Bare Escentuals were Allergan (NYSE: AGN) and Medicis Pharmaceutical (NYSE: MRX). I will concede to Cramer that those two stocks have moved upward also. My point here is small and simple: You don't need a television crew and a stable of financial analysts to pick a winner now and then. If you have good instincts and the willingness to do your own research, you too can pick some stocks which will pay you to own. To quote my bald headed nemesis: "Do your homework."

(Image courtesy of Norton Sales)

At Microsoft, the world really is flat – at least its stock price for the past few years. Yet, the company's executives are getting paid as if they are really improving stockholder value.

In fact the overall performance bonuses amount to almost $1 billion, according to recent SEC filings. Yes, it's an unusual definition of performance. Then again, in Corporate America, it seems that executives get bonuses whether they perform or not.

In the case of Microsoft the bonuses are in the form of stock. The idea is that the executives' interests will be aligned with the shareholders'. Well so far it hasn't worked out very well.

How about firing some of these executives? Maybe that will be an incentive to get better performance?

Ironically, these bonuses were the result of a compensation plan Microsoft established three years ago. Because of the steep fall in the company's stock after the dot-com boom, the company's stock options were severely out-of-the-money. So, the company moved to restricted stock grants. These grants vest over time, and now we are seeing this happen.

Here are just some of the payouts: Jeff Raikes, the president of Microsoft Business Division, got $7.5 million; Kevin Johnson, the co-president, Platforms & Services Division, got $6 million; and Brad Smith, general counsel, got $2.3 million.

This is definitely a cool gig if you can get it.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and operates InvestorOffering.com.