bcs

This line (subscription required) from today's Wall Street Journal pretty much tells you everything you need to know about how not useful Wall Street analysts are:

Just a month ago, Goldman's commodity analysts predicted crude oil would average $148 a barrel next year. On Sept. 16, they trimmed that forecast to $123. On Monday, they slashed it to $86 a barrel.

That's right: analysts are being paid millions of dollars and receiving tax deductions on pinstripe suits to raise estimates as prices rise and then slash them when they fall. Such analysis is truly priceless -- almost as valuable as a solar-powered flashlight or a Wiimote-powered Roomba. And keep in mind that Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) is actually probably the best firm on Wall Street.

The point is this: most of the analysts you see on networks like CNBC are just expressing their mood on that particular day.

If you're in it for the long-term, the best thing you can do is nothing -- live within your means, invest regularly, and don't pay too much attention to the news.

One way to go broke is to buy oil when the analysts says it's going to $148 and then sell it after the downgrade.

When DeepCapture.com, a site run by Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) CEO Patrick Byrne and the company's in-house cyberstalker Judd Bagley, published its latest "expose" on Fortune reporter Roddy Boyd, it was nothing new: just more innuendo aimed at demonstrating that Boyd is corrupt and evil because he writes negative stories on bad companies.

But I was somewhat impressed by the ambition of the headline on a site that claims to be producing "investigative journalism": "Roddy Boyd Sucks It Like He's Paying the Rent." In a shocking outburst of good taste, the headline was changed to "Roddy Boyd Works it Like He's Paying the Rent, but the URL remains http://www.deepcapture.com/roddy-boyd-sucks-it-like-hes-paying-the-rent/.

The post was written by Patrick Byrne and is, in my opinion, a pretty good reason for the LGBT community (and anyone else who doesn't have a lot of respect for vulgarity) to boycott the site.

Not that Overstock -- which still hasn't reported a profitable year -- will end up in the black even without a boycott. Hopefully, Overstock's PR hacks will rush to put out a press release disavowing their commander in chief's unattractive trash talk and use of homophobic slurs to insult his perceived enemies.

Overstock.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSTK) can't seem to make money selling chatchkes online, so the company has shifted its business model toward suing anyone and everyone who has ever thought a negative though about Overstock, its business model, or its controversial CEO Patrick Byrne.

Today the company announced that it has settled its lawsuit against Gradient Analytics, which it had sued for publishing negative research that played a role in driving down the company's stock price. In a press release issued by Overstock, Gradient said that "Having reviewed all SECfilings, relevant accounting literature, and all other information available to it, Gradient now believes that, to the best of its knowledge, Overstock's stated accounting policies did in fact conform with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and regrets any prior statements to the contrary."

The company also said that directors it had previously suggested were not independent were in fact independent in accordance with NASD rules.

Is this a big victory for Overstock or just the end of a battle of attrition where the publicly-traded company had more cash to burn on legal fees than the small research shop? We'll never know.

But I'll make a bet right now: Overstock's earnings report for the fourth quarter will not include a massive one-time gain on the settlement of this litigation.

As for Gradient's most important claim -- that Overstock's business model is flawed and the company is unlikely to ever become solidly profitable -- there is no evidence to the contrary.

In what looks like a pretty desperate move by a much-hyped network that hasn't gained much traction, Fox Business has taken to running commercials (I just saw it on the Fox News Channel) bashing CNBC investment personality Jim Cramer. Catchy line: "The last thing you need is Jim Cramer."

It reminds me a little bit of a certain presidential candidate who, after earlier disavowing personal attacks, has jumped on the smearing bandwagon as his poll numbers point to desperation.

Maybe this will work for FOX, but I doubt it. People like Jim Cramer and he provides a lot of brilliant insight and analysis, even if his stock picks are something less than that.

One of my favorite literary devices is the use of the self-answering question: Who's buried in Grant's Tomb? How many letters are in the number four?

Well BusinessWeek has a great one (albeit cheating a little bit because it contains a declarative and a question) in the lead to its story on the recent ban on short selling in financial stocks: "During the nearly three-week ban on shorting financial shares, the market sank 21.5%. Are regulators after the wrong parties?"

It's probably a stretch to try to conclude that the temporary ban on shorting financials really hurt the performance of the market -- there was plenty of bad news driving down stock prices. But maybe it actually did play a role. According to BusinessWeek, "If anything, the ban on selling short seems to have exacerbated market volatility by depressing trades in the options market and forcing investors who couldn't hedge their long stock positions to take offsetting options to sell their stocks."

I'll offer another suggestion: I think that the SEC might have freaked out a lot of investors by sending the message that things are such a mess that it was necessary to change the rules -- in essence, to cheat -- to prop up the market.

Now the shorts are back for their first full week, and the market is set to open with big gains. Time to move onto the next scapegoat -- anything to avoid the dreaded mirror.

With the economy in the toilet, a lot of people are reluctant to go and spend big on restaurant cuisine.

By itself that would be a good reason not to invest in restaurant companies. But restaurant stocks have been absolutely smoked of late, so you have to wonder how much of the bad news is already priced in. Take a look:

• DineEquity (NYSE: DIN), parent company of IHOP and Applbee's: closed on Friday at $11.13, 83% off its 52-week high.
• The Cheesecake Factory (NASDAQ: CAKE): closed Friday at $10.96, 56% off its 52-week high.
• CKE Restaurants (NYSE: CKR), parent company of Carl Jr.'s and Hardee's: closed Friday at $8.88, 47% off its 52-week high.
• Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX): closed Friday at $11.08, 59% off its 52-week high.

With very few exceptions, restaurant stocks have been pulvarized of late. It's true that the bad times may last awhile longer but in the grand scheme of things, a few quarters -- or even a few years -- of poor sales and earnings have very little bearing on the creation of long-term shareholder value. That is if a company is well-capitalized and has little leverage.

I think bargain hunters who buy and hold restaurant stocks trading at low price/earnings ratios with very little debt and strong brands will do quite well here.

One stock to avoid: DineEquity, which trashed its balance sheet with the Applebee's acquisition and may have to head back to the market to raise cash at the expense of current shareholders. The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) on unprecedented promotions and store closings for some leading chains.

With closings and consolidation, well-managed companies with good balance sheets should come out of this mess OK, and investors who get in at depressed prices should prosper.

With SEC Chairman Chris Cox using his light saber to battle the imaginary sith lord of naked short selling, SEC Inspector General David Kotz has released a fourth report criticizing the commission for its oversight of Wall Street over the past two years.

According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Kotz found that the SEC's Miami office dropped a case against Bear Stearns "and others despite negotiating a $500,000 settlement with the investment bank for failing to supervise a former employee. The case, which was described as 'strong' by at least three enforcement staffers, was dropped without being presented to the five-member commission for a vote."

The head of the Miami office, David Nelson, told Bear Stearns lawyers that "Christmas is coming early" this year, and "Bear Stearns can keep their money." The case involved an employee who was alleged to have given inappropriately high valuations to bonds and loans held by a Puerto Rican bank.

The SEC's enforcement staff responded to the report by saying that it is "misleading, and all too often relies on speculation and innuendo to support its harsh conclusions."

Harsh conclusions? You mean like the collapse of the financial sector and a $700 billion taxpayer funded bailout?

It's unclear whether a $500,000 settlement would have changed anything, but the announcement might have tipped off investors to the huge problems at Bear Stearns before it was too late.

Since trading close to $25 per share in early 2007, shares of the former Hansen Natural (NASDAQ: HANS) heir-apparent Jones Soda (NASDAQ: JSDA) have tanked. They closed on Friday at a stunning 75 cents per share, down more than 27% on the day.

On October 6th, the company reduced its workforce by 38% to 68 employees, adding that termination and severance expenses were not expected to be material. CEO Stephen Jones said that "Given the financial crisis we're in, you have to preserve cash. Cutting back people is a horrible thing to go through, but you do it as a result of strategy. And my strategy is to focus on the core of what Jones Soda is."

Jones (whose surname is a coincidence) told Fortune Small Business about an ambitious plan to focus on core strengths, reduce sales to discounters, and bring the company back from the brink. Maybe that will work but, either way, the stock looks interesting at its current price. With a market cap of about $20 million, Jones Soda had tangible shareholder's equity of about $27 million at the end of the second quarter -- including nearly $20 million in cash and short-term investments.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that General Motors (NYSE: GM) was recently in discussions to acquire Chrysler from Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm in the unpleasant position of owning that train wreck.

Once you learn the details, it's not quite as dumb as it sounds at first. According to the Journal, "Cerberus proposed a swap in which GM would acquire Chrysler's automotive operations, and in turn give Cerberus its remaining 49% stake in GMAC."

Given what a mess GMAC is, the proposal provides an idea of what Cerberus thinks of Chrysler's long-term prospects. It's a little bit like a few college students trying to trade 98 Degrees CDs for Dawson's Creek posters.

It's pretty much moot because the events of the past week have made a deal of this size impossible to put together, at least for now. But it's still interesting to think about. Given what a dump GM is, it's hard to imagine that an acquisition of this size and complexity would help matters. CEO Richard Wagoner (seen at right mulling the merger) already has his hands full.

GM insists that bankruptcy is not on the table. But so does every company -- until it files.

In a stunning reversal of fortune, Chesapeake Energy Corp.'s (NYSE: CHK) CEO put out a press release after the close of trading on Friday disclosing that he "involuntarily sold substantially all of his shares of Chesapeake common stock over the past three days in order to meet margin loan call."

Aubrey K. McClendon stated that "I am very disappointed to have been required to sell substantially all of my shares of Chesapeake. These involuntary and unexpected sales were precipitated by the extraordinary circumstances of the worldwide financial crisis. In no way do these sales reflect my view of the company's financial position or my view of Chesapeake's future performance potential. I have been the company's largest individual shareholder for the past three years and frequently purchased additional shares of stock on margin as an expression of my complete confidence in the value of the company's strategy and assets. My confidence in Chesapeake remains undiminished, and I look forward to rebuilding my ownership position in the company in the months and years ahead."

Read the Form 4 here. It's a little bit sad to watch this happen. McClendon's stake in Chesapeake landed him at number 134 on the 2008 Forbes list, He is also a part owner of the NBA's Oklahoma City Thunder.

It's now clear what one major driver of the sell-off in the company's shares this week was -- it may have presented a buying opportunity and, while it's sad to see someone wiped out, this aggressive insider buys with borrowed funds indicate strong confidence in the company.

Back in July of 2007, Jim Cramer -- who is a very smart guy -- conducted an interview on TheStreet.com (NASDAQ: TSCM) website, where he told Farnoosh Torabi that the subprime crisis had "absolutely no relevance" and added that the media was making a big deal out of it to try to look like they knew as much as the hedge fund managers.

Ooops. Let me be clear: I'm a big fan of Mr. Cramer, and I watch his show regularly. But the bottom line is that, when it comes to predicting the future of the market and analyzing issues as complex as this -- no one knows anything.

With the Dow Jones Industrial Average set to close down at least 600 points, MarketWatch is opting for some gallows humor.

The Countdown to the close banner at the top of the screen is sponsored by "Jack Daniels: Best Enjoyed Responsibly."

Is this an innocent mistake, or are the fine people at MarketWatch indulging in irony? We may never know.

With General Motors Corporation (NYSE: GM) begging the federal government for cash in the face of a deteriorating balance sheet and a hideous fundamental outlook, Standard & Poor's has placed the company on credit watch negative. S&P says the company has adequate liquidity for the balance of 2008, but that the outlook is murkier for 2009.

Shares of GM are currently down more than 20% but, suspiciously, had been lagging the market badly long before CNBC broke the story about the rating move.

I consider myself a big believer in contrarian investing, and I'm certainly not one of the "Sell stocks now! It's only going to get worse" crowd, but it's hard for me imagine how things will get better for General Motors. The balance sheet's a mess, the industry's in trouble, and General Motors has to battle with leaner overseas competitors. Don't even get me started on the legacy costs.

GM will probably bounce around, but it's hard to imagine that it's final destination will be anywhere other than bankruptcy.

Here's a graphic a friend sent me that requires no explanation. Enjoy:

After receiving an $85 billion taxpayer bailout, you would think that the executives at AIG (NYSE: AIG) might have moderated their lavish lifestyles and behaved like the de facto civil servants that they now are.

But during a House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md, described what actually happened: a vacation:

After the bailout of AIG last month, the United States government effectively bought an 80% share in the company. That should have caused a fundamental change, you would think, in how the company was spending funds on compensation, bonuses and benefits.