A big change has come in the way we receive financial news from Google (GOOG). The company recently announced that it was doing away with financial newswire releases, in favor of distributing company financial news through its own website(s). Google spokesperson Jane Penner stated it this way: "We felt it made a lot of sense, given that we're a technology company and that we announce virtually all of our company news on our blogs."

The change is almost insignificant, really, when we consider that Google is a glass-walled corporation anyway. What news happens at Google comes out of Google and gets splattered every which way. There's almost no escaping it.

The following story is overflowing with irony. The reason is partly because of one man's lack of irony: Hugh "Skip" McGee, the former head of investment banking at Lehman Brothers, sent a five-page screed to the board of trustees at his son's private Texas high school after a teacher referred to bankers as "sleazeballs". DealBreaker has published the letter in its entirety. If you have a lot of time on your hands, read and look for Skip's complaints about the lack of cross-dressing at the pep rally, among other things.

His demands? The teacher, the upper school principal, and the headmaster should all resign over the injustice. That's right: a former executive at Lehman Bros. is demanding accountability.

Very interesting story/rant over on WalletPop.com about the latest in a line of DirecTV (NYSE: DTV) ads -- this one featuring Chris Farley. Jami Bernard, the rant's author, is upset that David Spade is using a famous clip from his and Farley's hit comedy Tommy Boy to advertise the satellite-television provider. Bernard argues that Farley would not have liked to be remembered for a minor fat joke.

How was that assumption exactly made? Farley made fun of his size. He made his money by being an oversized, clumsy, fish-out-of-water comedian, so how can we determine that a "minor fat joke" (which some may argue is the funniest part of a very funny movie) is how he would or would not like to be remembered?

This weekend, financial writer and investor James Altucher published a controversial article, The Internet Is Dead (As An Investment), igniting a debate in the financial blogosphere by saying "...run for the hills when it comes to advising clients to invest in the Internet. The days of infinite margins, 1,000% productivity gains and growth of market throughout the universe are long over. Internet companies now should be treated, at best, like utility companies that get bought at about 10 times earnings and sold at 13 times earnings."

It's an interesting point of view from someone so heavily invested in this space. (Altucher is an investor and partner in Social Leverage that funds Web businesses including Bit.ly, Stocktwits, Tweetdeck and Ticketfly)

Fred Wilson responded on his blog with a post entitled, The Internet Is Alive And Well (As An Investment)
saying "We (my partners and I at Union Square Ventures) think the Internet is one of those transformative technologies that changes everything."

This is the market view from five prominent stock market bloggers. I asked them each one simple question: Where do you think the market is headed, and why? Here are their responses (listed in alphabetical order):

James Altucher – TheStreet.com

Altucher is a financial journalist for the Financial Times, daily contributor to TheStreet.com (NASDAQ: TSCM), and founder of Stockpickr. His articles cover every angle of the market; he also stars in feature videos with other financial luminaries. He is the author of Trade like a Hedge Fund, Trade Like Warren Buffett, SuperCa$h, andThe Forever Portfolio.

"The market sold off too much. S&P 700 was anticipating the apocalypse, which is not happening. With $15 trillion in stimulus worldwide happening over the next one to four years there is only one hedge for inflation: owning a broad spectrum of stocks. Buy internets, nuclear energy (Altucher mentions Shaw Group (NYSE: SGR), Cameco Corp (NYSE: CCJ) and USEC Inc (NYSE: USU) in THIS video segment), gold producers, and healthcare stocks."

I have to admit that I'm a little naïve. While I've long since realized that rich men and pretty girls go together like frat parties and crab lice, I always assumed that the connection was tenuous and unformed. Basically, I imagined that it was a matter of overlapping social circles: bars, nightclubs and restaurants use financial sector employees to boost their bottom line by buying overpriced drinks and over-engineered food. In order to get these socially inept adrenaline junkies in the door, hot spots try to attract models by offering free crudite, well-appointed vomitoria, and... you guessed it, large numbers of financial sector employees. Thus, the models find their money men, the money men get their gold diggers, and the restaurants get a lot of money.

Now, I'm not a total rube. I never thought for a second that this connection was the result of random chance or pure romance. After all, there is nothing like a model to enhance the reputation and self-image of a hedge fund manager. Conversely, after Baywatch went off the air, financial-sector employees became the ultimate means for aging models to parley their looks into long-term financial security. Both groups have something to offer the other; while this may not be the basis for true love, it certainly serves as a stable foundation for a business arrangement.

Leave it to some aspiring comedian to come up with the "official" blog of accused fraudster Bernard Madoff.

That's right someone writing under the pen name "Not the Devil" offers readers Madoff's "opinions" on the a variety of issues and Wall Street personalities. The results can be amusing, particularly if you did not lose money in Madoff's immense Ponzi scheme.

The blog takes aim at the media's fascination with Madoff. "To whoever it was that managed to get yourself a bi-line in today's Sunday business section: You need to get more credible people to comment; a former FBI agent portrays me as a 'psychopath," the fake Madoff argues.

A little while back, I sat down and asked a few questions of $30,000/month blogger John Chow in this post and it was a big hit. Few people realize there was so much money to be made from blogging.

A few months later, everything's changed: John Chow isn't reporting his monthly numbers anymore and even if he was, my personal blog, TimothySykes.com, would be blowing him away as just the other day, I detailed in this post how my little blog earned $70,000 in August.

Yes, you read that correctly, I might write for AOL and TradingMarkets.com, but I'm also an internet entrepreneur and judging from my blog's monetary growth -- $15,000 in May, $25,000 in June (both estimated since the figures weren't bragworthy), $45,000 in July (see detailed breakdown here) and of course August's blowout month which is made even more impressive considering I took a trip to Japan for the last 10 days of the month (see itinerary here), I'm succeeding rather nicely.

So, in honor of my religion -- Judaism (at Passover we ask ourselves four questions) -- I asked myself the four questions that matter most about what's worked and what hasn't. Obviously I'm biased, but I'll try to be as brutally honest as possible, as usual.

Q: Timothy, to what do you attribute your blog's astounding ability to make money even as traffic growth has flatlined somewhat?
A: Good question (and I must say you're looking rather handsome as you write this). I'd say No. 1 it's not holding anything back. Brutal honesty. With a lot of joking around/sarcasm. In a word: real.

I have no long one page sales sheets nor overly technical posts. It's all about writing from the heart -- whether some/many take offense or not. Considering I've been a profitable stock trader for the vast majority of my decade-long career, my experience and knowledge is worth something...especially considering that 90% of traders lose money!

With theories flying about the cause of the problems in the financial sector, just about every possibility has been discussed. Unfortunately, the media has given tremendous attention to the "evil short-seller conspiracy" idea but, on his blog, billionaire Mark Cuban offers a more sane alternative: "Risk and reward have been decoupled for CEOs on Wall Street."

Cuban writes: "If you are the CEO of a major public company, once you qualify for your golden parachute there is absolutely no reason not to throw the Hail Mary pass, and do high risk deals every chance you get.... Lets just say for example, you run Fannie May or Freddie Mac. You basically f*** up the entire housing economy. Your punishment ? You walk away with 9mm and 14mm dollars as severance."

Instead of cracking down on short-selling, regulators and especially directors should be looking at the corporate governance issues that led executives at companies like Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM), Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH), and American International Group (NYSE: AIG). One possible solution that is already beginning to take hold at many companies is providing executives with restricted stock grants instead of options so that there is an incentive to retain value rather than betting the farm on growth.

While Cuban's analysis is probably overly simplistic -- the recent mayhem is not only a result of poorly structured CEO pay -- the huge unchecked risks and excessive leverage at so many companies should lead to a renewed call for changes in corporate America.

Some people are so eager for Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) to buy Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) that they will do anything to make it happen -- even spread rumors to gullible members of the media. I pity the investors who bought Yahoo!'s stock on this rumor.

Earlier today, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington reported that the talks were back on but also noted that "The information we have is thin, but what one source is saying that Microsoft is talking a price lower than the $33." Thin? So even Arrington was not sure whether he was being told the truth. Interesting.

CNET's Dawn Kawamoto refuted TechCrunch's post, arguing that all Microsoft wanted to do was "sweeten its previous offer" of a partial buyout of Yahoo!'s search business, citing "one major investor who has been in contact without parties."

So, Kawamoto is taking the word of one person to make such a bold statement. This person must be very important if both Microsoft and Yahoo! are willing to confide their most inner-most confidences in him or her. Or maybe not. It's tough to tell. Dow Jones Newswires also denied Arrington's report but added that its sources "indicated the companies might be open to alternative transactions" whatever that means.

The long-awaited blog of billionaire activist investor and sometime "corporate raider" Carl Icahn has gone live and the results are delightful. So far The Icahn Report has seven posts, none of which discuss his own holdings.

Much of what's on The Icahn Report will be familiar to anyone who has followed Icahn's grumblings about corporate governance in the past. Here's a great quote: "Poor corporate governance now threatens more than just potential shareholder value; it threatens this country's very economic survival."

The name of the post? "Corporate democracy is a myth."

The stuff on the site so far is classic Icahn -- nothing new, but a refreshing expose of corporate America nonetheless and talk you won't hear anywhere else. Normally talk about compensation gone wild is addressed as a populist issue, but Icahn discusses it the way it should be addressed: as a corporate governance issue.

If Icahn can keep up his blogging, the site could well become one of the most important financial blogs going. To learn more about the early part of Icahn's career, check out King Icahn -- one of the best out-of-print business books I've found.

I'd be thrilled to see future posts lashing out at management teams and directors at specific companies.

Associated Press has made it quite clear that the organization intends to put the hammer down on bloggers who quote that news service. As one who routinely quotes and links to Associated Press content, all I can say is, "Yeah, good luck with that."

At first, AP took a hard-line stance, demanding that one particular blog should remove seven pieces of content which featured quotes from AP articles and stating that bloggers across the internet should curtail the use of AP content. However, when faced with a swift backlash from a cross section of well-known and heavily-read bloggers, the news service took a big step back. The New York Times reported that Jim Kennedy, vice president and strategy director of The A.P., stated in an interview that the agency was "heavy-handed" and that A.P. would "rethink its policies toward bloggers."

I'll alert Minyanville.com readers when Congressional hearings are scheduled to address this other form of speculation, which includes windfall losses.

As for the market, it would seem the largest institutions are equally hopeful -- for the sake of their relative performance -- that this simply can't be: According to some reports I've seen, they're roughly 500 basis points underweight energy.

I'd imagine both will continue to be long shaking heads.

Positions in Energy, Futures and Equities.

My perennial near-hero Mark Cuban recently examined the issue of CEO pay, over on his handy soapbox, The Blog Maverick. In his blog post titled "My 2 Cents on CEO Pay," Mr. Cuban outlined his position on the subject and tossed some ideas around. The post makes a good read, and the author makes some good points. Additionally, the 65 or so comments by the readers are well worth the time to cruise them.

I'd like to discuss and expand upon an idea someone presented in addition to those discussed by Mark Cuban. It's actually a reverse scenario to what Mr. Cuban describes as moving chief executive officers into "the cash zone." In the Cuban scenario, the CEO would be paid cash, without additional compensation through stock grants, in order to make their pay more tangible and visible as a business expenditure. Mr. Cuban also asserts that this might more closely align CEO compensation with company performance. It's an admirable idea, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

In this alternate approach, we give the CEO all the stock certificates he or she can swallow. Then we provide an equal number to be divided among all other employees of the company. In this manner of compensation, all employees have their hands on the ball. The concept of laboring to line the pockets of someone else with gold would become extinct. The CEO would suddenly become a real person in the eyes of the rank-and-file laborers. Likewise, the labor force would be inextricably linked to the financial success of the CEO. If labor is to share the risk, they should also share the reward.

A further stop-gap to this scenario would be if upper management deemed that labor cuts were needed to create profitability, or for any reason other than "cause," they and the CEO would be required to surrender share holdings equal to the holdings of the displaced workers. These surrendered shares would then be distributed to the pink-slipped workforce members, with the company paying all applicable taxes on the transfer. Additionally, no party would be allowed to liquidate more than 5% of their holdings in any one year, as long as they were employed by the company, and upper management would be required to maintain holdings at least equal to those of the workforce.

I know it's a lofty scenario, but it sure would beat the heck out of what we have going on now.

Former Crazy Eddie CFO and sometime Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) critic Sam E. Antar has posted an item on his blog accusing that company of a "stock market manipulation scheme."

Read Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme – First Quarter Earnings Release here.

In the post, Antar alleges that the first quarter earnings press release issued on Friday was "intentionally timed with expiration of options to manipulate the market (i.e., as a "short squeeze") and to bury and downplay grave news of a criminal investigation in California."

Analyzing the company's numbers, Antar points out that the company's revenue from its auction business declined more than 44% year-over-year, in spite of CEO Patrick Byrne's claim as recently as January that "things look better from here" for the auction site.

Antar accuses the company of violations of SEC rule 10b-5: interesting given that the company is currently the target of an SEC investigation.

Here are a few of my past posts on the company that one securities lawyer affectionately refers to as OverSchlock.com:

Shop at Overstock, Support Cyberstalking.
Patrick Byrne, Hypocrite
Patrick Byrne Defending USXP Fraud?
More Goofy Press Releases
Byrne overpaid at $0?