Could it possibly be that someone other than Mark Zuckerberg is the majority owner of Facebook -- the largest social network in the world with nearly 500 million members? That would be incredible, but that is exactly what Paul Ceglia claims in a civil lawsuit he filed in the Supreme Court of New York's Allegany County last month. Ceglia says he owns 84% of Facebook.

According to the lawsuit, Paul Ceglia asserts he signed a contract with Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder, in 2003 to develop and design a website, which eventually was launched as thefacebook.com. The contract entitled Ceglia to a $1,000 fee and a 50% stake in the product.

A major point in the contract also stipulated that Ceglia "would acquire an additional 1 percent interest in the business, per day, until the website was completed." By February 4, 2004, Ceglia's stake in Facebook totaled 84%, according to the suit.

The long awaited Initial Public Offering (IPO) of Tesla Motors (TSLA) stock hit the market at $17.00 a share and it is up in a down market, trading between $18 and $19 throughout Tuesday morning.

I say stay away. First and foremost, investors should take note of the fact that most IPO's end up as losing propositions. In the case of Tesla, which lost over $55.7 million last year and will lose more this year, the bleeding has just begun.

The car manufacturing business is very capital intensive and Tesla only hopes to stem the tide in 2012 when it projects a production run of 20,000 Model S all electric sedans for $50,000 each.

The daily cost of operations, clean-up and restitution to BP plc (BP) has reached $100 million per day (over the last three days), according to the company. Unless this is being broadcast to garner unlikely sympathy from a angry crowd, then the costs have reached a magnitude I would have thought unlikely, and my contrarian bet on BP may be at risk.

It's important for me to disclose from the beginning (not just in the footer) that I have wagered that BP is oversold through options and equity. How much so depends on a lot of factors. I made this calculated risk based on the assumption that forcing the company into bankruptcy is not in anyone's best interest. However, I am once again reminded of a great line from the The Maltese Falcon, in which Kasper Gutman cautions Sam Spade:

When you are in a hole, stop digging -- no expression better exemplifies the situation in Venezuela caused by Hugo Chavez and his government. Obviously, this is not something they understand, as the current administration keeps digging the Venezuelan economy into a deeper hole, intensified by its attempt to nationalize rigs owned by a U.S.-based company.

On Wednesday, Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez issued a statement that Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the state oil company, was going to nationalize 11 oil rigs owned by Helmerich & Payne, a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based drilling company.

All it takes is one story to ignite the market, reverse fortune and increase volatility. In the past two weeks this has happened a lot, as the tug-of-war between bulls and bears plays out. The fervor created by headlines portrays investors with little conviction about what to do with their money.

Inflation or deflation, what can we look forward to? Is China going to blow-up its economy with its very own housing bubble? Will Greece default and others follow? Will BP p.l.c. (BP) stock fall deeper than its undersea gushing Gulf of Mexico oil well, and take other oil service companies down with it?

Does any of this matter -- yes and no.

Voltaire said, "Common sense is not so common" and George Bernard Shaw commented that having " ...enough of it was genius."

This reminds me of Warren Buffet, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) or Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Inc. (AAPL) that have both displayed plenty of the former and arrived at the latter in their business pursuits.

Derivatives like Collateral Debt Obligations, or CDO's, and Credit Default Swaps, get their value from something else entirely: total hype in an environment of smoke and mirrors.

It turns out that if you build layer upon layer of derivatives until you have no idea what the original underlying value truly is, it becomes so convoluted that a genius can't comprehend it at all. It is self evident that nobody could even determine all the counter-party risk.

The world learned the details about the Apple Inc. (AAPL) iPhone 4G from Steve Jobs yesterday, and while he was presenting the amazing device with 100 new features and 24% slimmer profile, the company stock was sinking. Actually, most stocks were sinking.

The biggest reason for the stocks recent demise: the big cats decided it was time -- and others started to follow. There is nothing wrong with Apple at all and yesterday Jobs pushed out further in the race to produce the best product, stretching a lead he is intent on maintaining. I'm no Apple cheerleader having posted Apple $300 -- Not This Year! last February, when I thought the fanboys were confusing dreams with facts.

During the ongoing environmental disaster caused by BP plc (BP) that is spewing thousands of barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico (only now reducing the spill rate), there have been many calls to have the federal government take over the cap and recapture effort. This is a very lame idea.

First of all, nobody has more incentive in bringing this disaster to an end then BP because no entity has suffered more financially or seen its reputation eroded faster.

What a dumb question. How the heck should I know how low Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) might go? But everyone keeps asking me.

I guess we do know a few things or can make some very broad judgments. Let's give the question some basic reconnoitering. Perhaps with a defensive position in mind, a word with military connotations is particularly appropriate.

The stock closed yesterday at $140.10. It has been falling faster than the market under the weight of the SEC, DOJ and Congressional chest pounding. I do not think they are going out of business so lets assume it will not go to zero. Let's even stick our necks out further by suggesting it is highly improbable that it falls anywhere near its low of November 2008 when it closed at $53.31, under the truly catastrophic financial nightmare following Lehman Bros. collapse -- and fear that Goldman Sachs could be next.

The financial stocks and the overall market continued to get pounded by news out of Europe. This time it was Germany halting naked short selling. Chancellor Merkel's coalition wants to stop traders from buying credit insurance on government bonds they don't own ("naked swaps").

While there has been little support for this measure outside of Germany by governments or financial institutions, I think it is long over due. Many are crying foul, stating that it will increase interest rates, dry up liquidity, and prevent institutions from hedging their risks. I'm not so sure these would be bad things. I can think of good reasons to ban naked swaps.

I do not take this stance without due consideration because I have significant stakes in the financial sector, including positions in Bank of America Corporation (BAC), Citigroup, Inc. (C), E-Trade Financial Corporation (ETFC), General Electric Company (GE), Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) and Wells Fargo & Company (WFC).

It has been three weeks since a BP (BP) oil rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico, and still the company has not been able to stop oil from spewing into the gulf. Friday, the companies involved got a earful from President Obama.

The three companies involved in the oil spill are BP, Transocean Offshore (RIG) and Halliburton (HAL).

Continuing from where I left off earlier today regarding the Goldman Sachs - Paulson & Company debacle...

What would have happened if the collateralized debt obligations were created and sold exactly as was done, shorted by Paulson, and the eventual buyer was Warren Buffett?

First of all, "my pal Warren" would not let his position be known to anyone beyond normal filing requirements and perhaps announced at some later date. Second, if it was disclosed that Buffett was betting against Paulson, Mr Paulson would be a huge fool if he did not think twice about his shorting the CDO given this new piece of information. Third, should the buyers of the actual CDO be treated differently than Buffett, or you or me? Of course not.

If I were CEO Blankfein, that is what I would have tossed back at Congress.

The more I think about the issue of Goldman Sachs (GS) being charged by the SEC for questionable business practices, and hauled in front of Congress for a big show, the more I think it is Congress that is at fault for the whole financial mess and should be answering questions.

It is not that Wall Street had no hand in the entire debacle, but it started with Congress and they magnified the damage by failing to correct their critical mistakes. I will get back to this later, but first I want to discuss the recent hearings and the fact that Goldman Sachs management was actually too easy on Congress.

The U.S. Treasury is selling 1.5 billion of its shares of Citigroup Inc. (C) and it's quite likely that Citigroup will start buying back shares at some point, but when?

Given the fact that the number of shares has doubled over the past couple of years, and that there is pressure on the stock from the government sale combined with news of the final negotiations regarding a sweeping financial reform bill coming to a conclusion, it was no wonder that the stock took quite a beating through Monday's trading session.

"Be careful what you wish for" goes the ancient Chinese proverb. The United States government, pushed and prodded by its industrial leaders to get the Chinese to raise the value of the Yuan, should heed these wise words.

The goal, of course, is to make U.S. goods and services cheaper, thereby improving the balance of trade. The problem is that it makes everything cheaper.

It is true that it would support the remaining manufacturing base, software companies, commodities and consulting services. However, this is but a portion of what we have to offer.

What happens if the Yuan increases by 20% against the dollar, and they decide to buy International Business Machines (IBM) the company, not just IBM mainframes? This is not so far fetched. Lenovo bought the ThinkPad notebook computer division from IBM and now it sells Lenovo ThinkPads to us. They would be able to buy IBM 20% cheaper than you or I could buy it.