fo

Shares of Crocs (NASDAQ: CROX) are down 45% in after-hours trading after the company reported "revised" Second Quarter and Full Year 2008 Sales and Earnings Per Share Guidance. Some key points:

• Quarterly revenue guidance revised down to an approximate range $218 million to $223 million from $247 million to $258 million. The company said it expected its 2008 sales to be down slightly from the prior year.
• Earnings per share guided down to 3 to 7 cents from 42 cents to 47 cents. For the full year, the company expects earnings of approximately $0, including the effect of a $20 million charge associated with the shuttering of its Canadian plant.
  

CEO Ron Snyder commented that "While we did experience solid sell-through with many of our major accounts, retailers across the board were extremely cautious with their level of reorders, choosing to operate with leaner inventories versus a year ago."

It's easy to understand why investors are souring on Crocs. I've been a bear for a long time, questioning the strength of its brand, massive insider selling, and the appearance of its products at discount stores.

With the stock down to around $5 per share, bargain hunters might be intrigued. The stock is trading right around its book value and, assuming the company doesn't have serious inventory problems, it could be an attractive buyout target. But given the questions about management's forthrightness that I've raised in the past, I'll be staying away.

Donald Trump Jr, the rather uncharismatic son of reality television personality Donald Trump, is looking to set up his own fund to invest in India's until recently red hot real estate market.

The younger Trump told Bloomberg that "The fund will be for acquisitions of real estate in the high end, and across the spectrum. The market place is beginning to understand and appreciate luxury, so there is a great opening for us there, as well as in resorts.''

He's looking to raise $1 billion, but given how cheap investors have become of late, I'm skeptical. What exactly are his credentials? He's 30-years-old, works for daddy, was a judge on his father's reality show, and -- the icing on the cake -- he was ousted from the board of the condo association where he lives.

If this guy can raise a billion bucks, then the economy is considerably stronger than we're giving it credit for ... or investors are considerably dumber.

But for now, these are just "plans" to raise "up to" $1 billion. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the money to role in, and frankly, this looks like a publicity ploy designed to create the impression that Trump Jr. is someone to be taken seriously.

Here's a quick sampling of the headlines various news organizations used to describe Apple's (NASDAQ: AAPL) quarterly results which sent the stock down:

• Apple's Rotten Report Scares Street (Wall Street Journal)
• Apple Bruised by Rotten Start for iPhone 3G (IndyStar)
• Apple's Bite (Portfolio)
• Weak Forecast Takes a Bite From Apple (TheStreet.com)
• Apple stock feels bite despite third-quarter profit (London Free Press)

But the king of Apple metaphors was SmartMoney, which went with the headline "Investors Sour on Apple After Tepid Forecast" -- and then, still not satisfied, went back for more: "Investors took a chunk out of Apple." And yet more: "There's nothing rotten about Apple's prospects . . ."

All of this would be forgivable if Apple were a new company. But it's been around since 1976 and I'd be willing to bet that every quarterly earnings release since its IPO in 1984 has been greeted with increasingly tiresome references to the pomaceous fruit after which the company is named.

Can't we just let it go? Does anyone think they're being remotely clever when they make references to the fact that an apple is a piece of fruit?

In these times of uncertainty, it's good to know that we can look to our president as a beacon of wisdom, shining light and nuance on the tough economic challenges our country is facing.

The New York Times reports that Bush summed things up this way at a Republican fund raiser: "Wall Street got drunk. . . It got drunk, and now it's got a hangover. The question is, How long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments?""

That kind of trenchant insight must be the true benefit of a Harvard MBA. I'm tempted to make a reference to the fact that George "Choked on a Pretzel" Bush knows all about drunkenness and hangovers, but instead I'll keep this non-personal. Although, maybe I won't: How long between Bush's last beer and his first run for office? Maybe that's how long it'll take Wall Street to sober up. Could be a quick turnaround!

But with bailouts of Fannie and Freddie set to cost taxpayers $25 billion -- to say nothing of the Bear Stearns fiasco -- it looks like this decade-long round of Grey Goose was on us. Cheers!

Some commentators are mourning the decline of the newspaper as web-based news rises, lamenting that quality, standards, and depth of research are going the way of the hula hoop.

But here's the problem: as newspapers lose circulation, they cut back on newsroom staff, and then the quality, standards, and depth of research decline.

A new study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism's study, called "The Changing Newsroom: What is Being Gained and What is Being Lost in America's Daily Newspapers" looked at the changing face of newsrooms and found that stories have gotten shorter, and only 5% of editors felt they could predict what the newsroom would look like in just five years.

But I wonder if the opposite is true: as websites continue to take market share away from the newspapers and have the resources to make considerable investments, will web-based journalism become better than newspapers? It seems likely.

If that's the case, then all the complaining about the death of the newspaper is misplaced. The sooner it dies and consolidates onto the internet, the sooner we'll have high quality journalism available for free, online, at our fingertips.

A piece in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) discusses "an emerging breed of directors who reach out to shareholders", listening to concerns, explaining governance policy, and basically just acting attentively in communications with shareholders.

But not everyone's so sure it's a good thing. There are concerns about Reg FD and selective disclosure -- directors can't say anything that material and non-public -- but directors should have enough familiarity with securities laws to know better. If they don't , they're probably ill-qualified for the Sarbanes-Oxley world.

I like the idea of directors holding meetings with investors, or even just talking on the phone. First of all, it's nice to see directors actually doing something to earn their keep. I'd support the idea of non-executive chairmen being required to stuff envelopes for a few hours a week because being a director is one of the easiest, least stressful, least time-consuming jobs there is.

Concerns about selective disclosure and undermining management aside, here's the thing: directors can always listen to shareholder concerns, and refusing to hear from the people you work for is just plain arrogant. They might not be able to say much, but they can always listen and, perhaps, learn about the issues that matter to their bosses: the shareholders.

Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK)'s stock tumbled more than 41% on Friday after the company reported its second quarter earnings. But investors looking for an indication of how things are going at the Utah company got a pretty eye-opening look on the company's conference call.

Chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne's answers to questions -- and his repeated pleas to CFO David Chidester for help and Chidester's corrections to Byrne's numbers -- demonstrate a CEO who simply isn't on top of the operations of his company as he devotes countless hours to lashing out at critics and spouting conspiracy theories.

Take a look at these examples from the conference call -- quotes taken from the Seeking Alpha transcript:

Matt Schimler – Merrill Lynch: Also, what percentage then of your direct business is reselling returns?
Patrick Byrne: Got to be about a quarter of it. Isn't it Dave?
David Chidester: I don't think it's quite that high.
Byrne: What is our direct business showing up on a GAAP basis, David, as a percentage of sales?
Chidester: It's about 21%.

That's right: the chairman and CEO of a publicly-traded internet retailer doesn't know what percentage of its sales come from the direct business. Can you imagine Steve Jobs' having to ask the CFO what percentage of sales come from the iPod?

Given that Byrne is obviously not to up on the company's fundamentals, you have to wonder about whether his predictions of profitability can be trusted.

Shares of Napster (NASDAQ: NAPS) rose more than 27% on Friday on speculation that the online seller of MP3s could be a takeover target at its current depressed share price.

The bullish case is easy to understand. The Napster name and site must be worth something and, before Friday's run-up, the company had a market cap of $52.1 million and $69.8 million in cash. Given Napster's iconic status as the beginning of music piracy, it's hard to imagine that the stock could be so cheap. Wouldn't the brand be worth something to anyone in the music download business? It's instantly recognizable and it would take many millions in advertising to create such a brand from scratch.

So I'm in complete agreement with the shareholders and analysts -- this company should be sold, and such a move would likely generate tremendous value for shareholders. But there's another side: as a stand-alone public company, Napster is a ticking time bomb.

Executive compensation gone wild is nothing new, but it's worth looking at in the context of Freddie Mac, whose stock has tanked on a weak housing market and questions about the company's solvency. Rumors are swirling that the publicly traded quasi-semi-governmental agency will seek some kind of government bailout.

Fortune's Colin Barr examined the company's latest proxy statement and found some disturbing trends in management compensation: for 2007, CEO Richard Syron took home a $1.2 million salary, a $3.45 million cash bonus, and stock awards and misc. other of $10.6 million. That was up 24% from a year ago.

If Freddie decides to seek public funds, it will look laughably hypocritical. When it comes to CEO pay, this is a company that wants to operate like a private business but, when the going gets rough, it pulls the federal trump card. That's crap.

Think about it: any bailout will be indirectly supporting that eight-figure compensation. I think taxpayers deserve better than that and, before we contribute a penny or guarantee anything, Mr. Syron should take a large pay cut and invest his own money in any preferred/secondary offering the company pursues. Think that'll happen? One can dream ...

The Sam Zell-owned Tribune Co. is selling its prized baseball team, the Chicago Cubs, and opening bids are due today.

Reuters reports that 10 parties have been approved by Major League Baseball to make bids, and the team could fetch over $1 billion. Potential bidders include a group led by taxi tycoon Andew Murstein, including Hank Aaron and Jack Kemp, and the usual band of moguls. But if you want to see some passion restored to baseball, you have to be routing for internet billionaire Mark Cuban, the flamboyant owner of the Dallas Mavericks.

Cuban has the cash and he's the one guy who would probably be willing to commit the resources to make the company a champion for the first time since 1909.

Murstein's, who is vice chairman of Sports Properties Acquisition Corp. (AMEX: HMR) told Reuters that "We're not going to chase the deal. With us, it's not going to be an ego buy."

For disenchatned Cubs fans, a billionaire on an ego trip would be the best buyer.

Shares of Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) are down nearly 30% after the company reported second quarter earnings. Revenue rose 27 percent to $188.8 but the company reported yet another big money-losing quarter, with $6.5 million, or 28 cents per share, flying out the door.

One way to evaluate the candor of management is to look at the company's statements in its press release announcing news -- if the company says all kinds of wonderful things about how great everything, but the stock still goes down 30%, it means that you're dealing with people who put lipstick on a pig. Here are some examples of the self-congratulatory tone of the earnings release. "For the first time in its history your business has generated four consecutive quarters of positive EBITDA and TTM operating cash flows. . . Our financial condition is sound despite a weak economy."

There's no mention of what went wrong in the press release, but obviously most people were hugely disappointed with the quarter. One problem for Overstock is that the company's sales and marketing expense ballooned 79% to $14.2 million.

You'll be happy to know that chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne continues to spout nutty conspiracy theories and post on message boards, arguing with anyone who dares criticize him.

The Friends of Angelo Mozilo loan scandal widens, with Portfolio.com publishing a list of prominent people who received favorable loan terms from Countrywide Financial because they were friends of its chairman and CEO. Christopher Dodd has already been raked over the coals for the special deals he received, but there's more: former Fannie Mae CEOs James Johnson and Franklin Raines, former HUD director Henry Cisneros, CNN commentator Paul Begala, and many others. View the full list here, with 17 names and details on the terms.

It's tempting to level allegations of political corruption, and special terms given to executives at Fannie Mae and a judge who later heard a case involving Countrywide would seem to be obvious conflicts of interest. But as scandals go, this one seems pretty lame in that regard. The amounts involved just weren't that big: What's $15,000 when you're William Esrey, the former CEO of Sprint? It seems more likely that Angelo Mozilo, an incredibly vain man, wanted to be a "player" and hobnob with influential people. That he used shareholder assets to pursue his social agenda is distasteful but, unfortunately, not particularly rare. And given what a corporate governance outhouse Countrywide was, it certainly isn't surprising.

But in the current environment where Countrywide is being raked over the coals, mostly with good reason, this was destined to turn into a big mess. Read the Portfolio exposé here.

In a press release, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had filed insider trading charges against Beaufort, South Carolina mayor William J. Rauch. The SEC alleges that he "purchased stock in Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (OTC: ACTC), immediately after one of its executives informed him about a breakthrough embryonic stem cell technique that the company was about to disclose publicly. According to the SEC's complaint, Rauch was told the information was confidential, and he had previously signed an agreement with the company that barred him from using confidential company information for his own benefit."

He agreed to pay $20,708 in disgorgement, $2,576 in prejudgment interest, $20,708 in penalties, and promised not to do it again -- without admitting or denying guilt, of course.

But it gets worse. According to the SEC's complaint (PDF File):

In mid-2005, Rauch entered into a written Finder's Fee Agreement ("Agreement") with Advanced Cell. Under the Agreement, Rauch agreed to refer potential investors to Advanced Cell. In exchange for Rauch's services, Advanced Cell granted Rauch an option to buy 48,000 shares of Advanced Cell stock and promised him a referral fee equal to a percentage of any amounts raised.

Translation: The mayor of Beaufort, South Carolina, in addition to the fact that he just settled insider trading charges, was also a shill for a penny stock, telling people he knew to invest in the company while pocketing a "referral fee" from the company. Given that he apparently had few qualms about trading on insider information, it seems likely that he had no problem steering people into shares of Advanced Cell Technology without disclosing his massive conflict of interest.

The announcement of the embryonic stem cell technique sent shares of the stock up to $1.83. They closed yesterday at 2.5 cents. I recognize that the standards of ethics for elected officials are pretty low, but citizens of Beaufort should give this clown the boot.

With the real estate market in the toilet, most people would never dream of investing in property right now. "It's going down!" How do we know that? Because reputable sources like BusinessWeek tell us it is.

And then there are the people who have made fortunes in the industry, and they see it differently. In an interview with Portfolio, Related Companies founder, chairman, and CEO Stephen Ross explained his decision to make huge new investments in Manhattan real estate"

"Too many people believe that when things are bad, they don't know how they can get good and when they're good, they don't know how they can get bad."

Ross has ambitious plans for the next few years: a $3 billion mixed-use development in Los Angeles, a $3 billion Colorado ski resort, and a 144-acre development in Phoenix, one of the hardest hit real estate markets.

Maybe the naysayer journalists know something Ross doesn't, but I somehow doubt it: he's number 68 on the Forbes list.

The prestigious 2008 No Kidding! Award For Obviousness in Financial Journalism goes to the Associated Press for this headline: GM's recovery depends on winning over car buyers.

Ya don't say? And here I was thinking it depended on the Yen carry trade.

But in a way, that headline is a wonderfully succinct illustration of why the odds of a successful turnaround at General Motors (NYSE: GM) are basically zero. The company has a crippling debt load and a cost structure that isn't even close to being competitive with the infinitely leaner Asian automakers which, by the way, make cars that are more relevant.

GM brass are sounding an optimistic note on their upcoming car introductions, and maybe they will improve. But the company has a difficult task: slash costs while restoring the company's brand positions. Either of those would be difficult, and both at the same time is probably impossible. The company is at a competitive disadvantage that is simply massive, and its decline has gained additional momentum from the decline of its brand equity. If GM didn't already exist, people would laugh at the idea: "Let's have a huge debt load and a really high cost structure and sell cars that are almost as good as our foreign competitors."

When I think about it like that, it's hard to find a reason to even consider investing in the company's stock.