It's been a week since our Money Face-Off posts ran here on BloggingStocks and less than a week since the Money Face-Offs were featured on the AOL welcome page, and the response has been terrific. Many of the face-off polls have more than 50,000 votes thus far, and some of the match-ups are very close.

The closest of all is the face-off of CNBC anchors Erin Burnett and Maria Bartiromo: 50/50 with more than 61,000 votes so far. And the post has garnered 39 comments so far. The commenters have strong opinions, whether defending Bartiromo or Burnett, wishing other anchors had been included, complaining about the photos, or even questioning the Money Face-Off feature itself. Be sure to check it out.

The face-off between the former and current New York City mayors, Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, garnered more than 67,000 votes. While Bloomberg has his defenders, presidential candidate Giuliani currently has a small lead in this match-up, with a little over half the votes. Can he hold on to that lead, though?

The match-up of supermodels turned businesswomen, Tyra Banks vs. Heidi Klum, also has more than 50,000 votes so far. In this case, it's Klum in the lead with about 55 percent of the vote. Only one reader, a Tyra Banks fan, has commented so far. Feel free to add your thoughts about which former supermodel you think is more successful.

Few professional money managers have had the success Peter Lynch has had. The former Fidelity manager of the widely-held Magellan mutual fund racked up great returns year after year in his tenure at Fidelity. After he retired in the 1990s, Lynch wrote a few books (which are worthy reads, I might add), and aimed them at the "everyman" of investing: the normal American consumer (hopefully, investor).

Along with Vanguard founder John Bogle, Lynch is someone I've followed for some time, and following much of what he said has, well, done right by me. But, after having talked with many a business associate and family member in the past year -- as the market has swayed to and fro -- few of them follow Lynch's investing strategy. That is, if they have an investing strategy at all beyond pumping 0.5% into that 401k and putting 50% of their portfolios into their employer's stock. Yikes!

The average mutual fund is a dog and laggard, yet salespeople rope everyday people into these expensive funds by the boatload. Bogle would have said, "just buy index funds and be done with it." Lynch would have said, "check the price-to-earnings ratio, make an informed choice, and be done with it." Both are exemplary ways to examine and adjust your portfolio.

Does it take some self-education? Sure it does -- but hey, it's only your money, right? Why would anyone pay an underperforming fund manager when buying a no-cost index fund produces better returns? Yes, in many cases the situation is a bit more complex than that, and tax rules and holding periods (among other things) come into play. Still, do you invest like Peter Lynch did? If not, why?

This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

If you're into no-cost investing, you've probably heard the name John Bogle before. The founder of the world's most populated mutual fund company, Vanguard Group, Inc., is completely synonymous with the premise of low- to no-cost investing. To the average joe, that means index funds that track whatever index suits your investment tolerance and pocketbook. Bogle has been a fierce critic of the mutual fund industry (along with me), which charges huge sales loads for minimal performance metrics if you were to average out the thousands of them.

Bogle loves to posit this: Who's getting rich from mutual funds? Those who manage them, but hardly anyone else. Bogle continues to burn the active mutual fund industry on the basis of costs alone. He's probably the largest proponent of investor performance there is, even though he is no longer at the helm of Vanguard. Suggested reading for starters: Bogle on Mutual Funds. There are many other fine selections as well.

Looking back at recent company statements regarding earnings and guidance, there seems to be a big disparity in the type of companies reporting above average numbers to those reporting below average numbers.

Beating

• Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC) -- Q3 guidance
• National Semconductor Corporation (NYSE: NSM) -- Q1 earnings
• Western Digital Corporation (NYSE: WDC) -- Q1 guidance

In Line

• Texas Instruments Inc (NYSE: TXN) -- Q3 guidance

Missing

• Staples Inc (NASDAQ: SPLS) -- Q2 earnings, Q3 guidance
• Office Depot Inc (NYSE: ODP) -- Q2 earnings
• Harley Davidson Inc (NYSE: HOG) -- 2H2007 guidance
• Weyerhaeuser Company (NYSE: WY) -- Q3 guidance

If legendary mutual fund manager Peter Lynch's adage that higher stock prices follow higher earnings still holds true, then it is time to take a closer look at technology stocks.

"All you need are a few stocks to make money. If you find one stock a year, that's plenty. When I was running Magellan I had to find one a week but that was because I had billions of dollars. The average person needs only a few good stocks in a lifetime." -Peter Lynch

While I generally believe that beating the market is nearly impossible, I think that the only way to have a fighting chance at doing it is through focus investing: Owning big chunks of only a few stocks. Diversification is the name of the game when it comes to reducing risk and, if you want to be diversified, I suggest an index fund. But if you want to beat the market, you have to bet big on a few stocks -- stocks that you are pretty sure about. Of course, such stocks only come along once in a blue moon. Warren Buffett has said that you only need a few good investment ideas over the course of your life to do extremely well.

If you're going to buy mutual funds with the hope of beating the market, I also believe in focus investing: Pick funds that only own a few stocks. Today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) has an interesting piece of focus mutual funds like the Permanent Portfolio Aggressive Value fund, which owns just 36 stocks.

If you can find a focus fund with strong management, that's probably your best bet at beating the market with mutual funds. It's very unlikely that even the most talented manager can come up with enough good ideas to beat the market while owning hundreds of different stocks.

Of course, there's a trade-off. Portfolios that aren't diversified will often have greater volatility, and may experience some really bad years, whereas diversified funds will usually perform pretty close to the market.

Focus investing is not for everyone, but I would argue that it's right for most people who want to try to beat the market. Of course, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to beat the market. By giving up on beating the market and settling for an index fund, you'll be able to beat around 80% of active managers.

The New York Times astutely observed today that the merger mania that is alive in the boardrooms of America may not be all good: "The term 'merger mania' may be more than a snappy description of the recent pace of corporate deal-making. It could be an astute diagnosis of a malady spreading through boardrooms and financial markets."

There's no really good reason for merger-mania. Historically, mergers and acquisitions very rarely create shareholder value, and tend to destroy it with alarming frequency. My cynical side believes that the compelling reasons for merger mania have little to do with creating shareholder value: Investment bankers push deals because they generate enormous fees, and corporate executives can reap huge rewards for consummating deals.

Then there's the other reason for deal-making, what Jim Cramer refers to as "two drunken sailors trying to hold each other up." This occurs when two companies that are struggling or in declining industries merge to try to stay afloat.

Peter Lynch is also no big fan of acquisitions, particularly when the target company isn't in the same line of business. He refers to this as "diworsification." Given the tendency for mergers to destroy rather than create value, I tend to sell when a company I hold shares in makes a large acquisition (particularly if the acquirer's shares surge).

I'm a big fan of Peter Lynch's methods for finding exciting growth stocks before other people do. His strategy: Go to the mall, talk to your kids, and learn about the businesses. There will be plenty of time for spreadsheets and discounted cash flow when you get back to the office. In her column Three Places to Spot Investment Ideas, TheStreet.com contributor Jennifer Openshaw advises readers: Take it to the streets, take it on the road, and take it to expert customers.

Because the first book on investing I read was by Peter Lynch, my first stock pick came from my own personal experience. I worked as a cashier at a grocery store and noticed that many people were using the new Coinstar machine. An elderly lady explained to me that she'd been reluctant at first, but that the fee that Coinstar charged was not as valuable as the amount of time she could save with it. "Doing it myself instead of using Coinstar would be the equivalent of paying myself $1.50 an hour to roll change," she told me.

I talked to the Coinstar technician and then, with my savings from work that summer, took the plunge. I bought a hundred shares of Coinstar (NASDAQ: CSTR), and earned a solid return on it.

Reading Openshaw's column got me to thinking: There are some pretty weird places to find investing ideas. So I'm asking our readers to leave a comment answering this question: What is the craziest place that you ever found an idea for a stock? The person who contributes the strangest story will win the satisfaction of knowing that he or she had the strangest story.

While it's hard to imagine Peter Lynch tossing Dan Loeb-ian epithets at incompetent executives, there is evidence that mutual fund managers are waking up from their long slumber and joining hedge funds in the fight for stronger corporate governance. Increasingly, prominent funds are pushing for governance changes, mergers and sales, and changes in management.

According to the Wall Street Journal (registration required), the change is motivated by practical factors: increased media and regulatory scrutiny of corporate governance is casting an eye at mutual funds (who for years have not been proactive shareholders), and they are facing competition from hedge funds for investor dollars.

I'm thrilled to see mutual funds stepping up to the plate, and taking on their responsibilities to shareholders. For too long it seems, management teams have been insulated from the shareholders by the mutual funds that wouldn't do anything. As Carl Icahn has said, "With some exceptions, the wrong people are running U.S. companies. It's been that way for years, and it hasn't gotten much better." With increased spotlight on management at publicly traded companies, and the specter of activist hedge funds and less-lethargic mutual funds haunting the boardrooms of corporate America, maybe that will change.

In a February 24th column in the Wall Street Journal, Bill Coles talked about his love of Arthur Conan Doyle's short stories featuring Sherlock Holmes. I enjoy Holmes, but prefer Agatha Christie's Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot. Why am I writing about this on BloggingStocks?

I believe that investors can learn a lot about methods of research and thinking about investing from reading the classic detective stories and novels. The way that they approach problems, think of solutions that others are likely to miss and do copious research, never accepting the obvious answer. These are all the characteristics of great investors, from Warren Buffett to George Soros to Peter Lynch.

Want to learn more about applying the methods of the great literary detectives to your investment research? Believe it or not, there's actually a book about it: Robert G. Hagstrom's The Detective and the Investor: Uncovering Investment Techniques from the Legendary Sleuths. This is not a book I would suggest to every investor, but if you enjoy a good mystery yarn as much as I do, you will want to pick up a copy.

I've just returned from the World Money Show, where some 10,000+ investors gathered to learn about global investing. I had a chance to meet with many of the advisors who were featured at the show, and will be highlighting some of their favorite investment ideas. To view all of the stocks featured in this special global report, click here.

Petrobras Petroleo-Brasileiro (NYSE:PBR) is among the latest additions to the buy list of Validea, a newsletter that selects its stocks by following the investment guidelines of time-tested strategies employed by investment "legends". In this case, the stock pick is based on the ideas of David Dreman, James P. O'Shaughnessy, and Peter Lynch.

Editor John Reese explains, "Petrobras is an integrated energy company controlled by Brazil's government. It is dominant in a number of markets. For example, it controls 98% of the country's refining capacity. Three guru strategies favor Petroleo Brasileiro.

"One of these is the strategy we base on the writings of David Dreman. The Dreman strategy views the company as a contrarian investment because both its P/E and price-to-cash flow ratios are in the bottom 20% of the market.

"However, the company is doing reasonably well financially, notes the strategy. Earnings are increasing, the company's current ratio of 1.51 exceeds its industry's average, return on equity is a very strong 35.05 percent and pretax profit margins are also very strong, at 32.59%. In addition, the stock's yield is 3.35%.

A big rule in books I've read from John Bogle to Peter Lynch to Warren Buffet always comes down to one single phrase that has never left my mind (and has done me well): invest in what you know. It's hard to invest in what you know if you are using auto-pilot solutions like index and mutual funds unless you scrutinize the industries those funds participate in as well as costs and other investing tidbits that all investors should really take the time to know. After all, it's your money -- where is it going? Invest yourself in information and then let your money do what it needs to, right?

This article over at Forbes tells of Dean White and his journey of 80+ years, as he's gone from teenage hard worker to billionaire real-estate magnate who built his fortune in the billboard industry. With that division gone, his sole focus now is the apartment industry, something Dean knows very, very well.

Which comes back to why billionaires get to where they are. In most cases, it takes decades (except the tech boom recently) to find out which industries you know, how to make money in them and how to stay personally invested in the areas where your money is working hard for you. After all, throwing wads of cash into a gaping hole -- and not knowing where it leads -- is the mistake many investors make. There could be a money-copying machine at the other end of that hole or even a paper monster ready to eat all those bills. Which would you rather have?

Hidden in the latest earnings release from Canadian Solar Inc. (Nasdaq:CSIQ) was this interesting observation from Chief Executive Shawn Qu about Germany, a huge market for solar energy.

"I just returned this past Saturday from another visit to our key German market. Unlike earlier
visits, I observed some weakness in this important market, which I believe is
attributable, in part, to inventory clearance efforts by smaller solar module
makers, many of whom are, I believe leaving the market," he said.

Qu added that industry consolidation will benefit the company -- which despite its name is based in China -- in the mid- to long-term. the short term was going to be difficult since " the current inventory clearance efforts by these smaller solar module makers have caused some of CSI's German distributors to delay or
reduce their end-of-year product stocking plans, thereby impacting CSI's
near-term operating results."

Legendary investor Peter Lynch, whose fondness for solar power is well-known, told me he isn't worried about a slowdown in this key solar market.

"I would certainly expect some slowdown given the rapid growth of the past years, but if so, it is only temporary and some of it will be picked up from other parts of Europe and Asia," he wrote in an email. "We are only at the very, very beginnings of the solar growth phase...........it have many decades to run."

Not that it needed any help, but it appears that the sun is getting a big surge of power. Well actually, it's solar stocks that are getting a jump start. With support from an article by Peter Lynch for www.Investorideas.com , I'm staying on the solar band wagon.

Many of our readers know that I've been up on this solar game for a while now, especially those oil heavy fund managers who have been laughing at me from Wall Street. I hear that laughter and I'm reminded of the billions of dollars lost in natural gas options this past year. Yes, it's a tough world in the energy game and I believe that for those who refuse to get in step, it's going to get tougher still.

Each year Steven Halpern, editor of TheStockAdvisors.com, surveys the leading financial newsletter advisors asking for their favorite stocks for the coming year. This article is part of his 24th annual Top Picks Report.

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) is a favorite conservative investment idea for 2007 from John Reese, editor of Validea, a newsletter that screens stocks based on the strategies of well-known investors such as Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch.

The advisor notes, "I am especially confident in my picks when multiple strategies identify a particular stock as desirable. This is the case with Johnson & Johnson. The stock gets a 100% match based on the Cornerstone Value Strategy developed by James O'Shaughnessy, a 93% score based on the Warren Buffett approach, and a 91% score based on the Peter Lynch method.

"O'Shaughnessy looks for large, solid companies. Cash flow per share must be higher than the market's average cash flow per share, which is currently $2.08. JNJ's is a healthy $4.55.

"JNJ meets Buffett's requirement that earnings have increased every year for the past ten years, and it also has little debt (it could extinguish debt with earnings in less than two years). JNJ also has a return on equity that has consistently been above 22% for the last ten years. It also has strong cash flow of $1.81 per share.

"Finally, JNJ might be appealing to former Fidelity Magellan manager Peter Lynch. Based on its past growth rate and sales levels, Lynch would classify JNJ as a stalwart -- a stock that can produce strong capital appreciation and hold up well in an economic downturn. Its yield-adjusted PEG ratio is 0.93, which this strategy would find acceptable, and its debt-to-equity ratio is around 6%, which is very low and another positive."

Quantitative analyst and editor of OTC Insight, Jim Collins sees opportunity in Steve Madden (NASDAQ: SHOO), a shoe designer whose products are distributed through department and specialty stores, its 95 retail shops and its e-commerce site.

Fundamentally, Collins is attracted to a recent new product launch known as the "Design your Own" collection, which lets buyers choose between the size of the heels and the patterns, materials, finishings and colors to customize their own shoes. Collins points out that there are a total of 4,221 possible combinations.

Technically, Collins looks to the stock's very high relative strength ranking of 98 out of 100 as well as its solid score of 'B' for accumulation-distribution. He does caution that the company is exposed to fashion risk, which he notes can be difficult to predict. Despite these risks, he has selected the issue as his latest featured investment.

Validea has an unusual approach to stock selection; editor John Reese assesses companies based on the strategies employed by "legendary investors." In the case of his latest buy, Finish Line (NASDAQ: FINL), the stock was chosen based on the value methodology used by Benjamin Graham (Warren Buffett's mentor) and Peter Lynch.