msft

Yesterday, we were all surprised to see the Dow Jones Industrial Average fall back below 8,000. The Dow finished down 427 points to land at 7,997. In other words, just enough to freak people out at being below 8,000. Everyone noticed that it hadn't been this low since 2003, nearly six years ago. In other words, if have you spent the last six years putting money away in your 401(k), depending on what dividends you got, you may as well have put your money in a money market fund.

We've got about 450 points to go in 2003. The lowest it got that year was 7,524 in March. In the olden days, 450 points on the Dow would seem like an improbable swing, taking weeks or months. Not so in highly volatile 2008. A 450-point-drop would represent about a 5% drop -- a higher percentage loss than it was just a few months ago.

After that, 2002 has a low of 7,286. To get there the Dow would have to fall 711 points or 8.8% from Wednesday's close. Once that happens, though, the floor drops out. I'm not talking about technical support here, just psychological and historical support. See, if the Dow drops below 7,286, then we're heading into 1997 territory. That's the last time the Dow was below 7,286. If it breaches that threshold, we're heading back to October, 1997, when the Dow was at 7,161.

If that happens, it would mean that a lot of the gains of the late 90s have been wiped out. An entire decade lost. It may be just a number and just psychological, but it will certainly bum me out.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

McDonald's has been hit by one serious critique after another of food safety and nutrition. The company has gone from being a family chain to something only those desperate to save time or money want. There have been half-hearted efforts to modernize, but what McDonald's really needs is a complete menu makeover.

I'm not talking about changing away from hamburgers in all their infinite variety, either. But over the last couple decades the eating public has gotten a lot more picky and worried about getting fat or sick from mad cow disease or some contaminant.

There have been many serious critiques of their impact on worldwide nutrition. Eric Schlosser described in Fast Food Nation how mega-producer McDonald's uses butchering assembly lines. In an era of food safety concern, "a single fast-food hamburger now contains meat from dozens or even hundreds of different cattle." Morgan Spurlock examined in the movie Supersize Me and a related book what happens when an individual -- or a whole country -- eats too much McDonald's.

Of course, McDonald's is facing pressure from the other side, too. We want cheap food. Especially in a recession, people love the dollar menu. But McDonald's has just got to improve the food.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

When Kmart bought Sears to become Sears Holdings Corp (NASDAQ: SHLD) it seemed like a perfect match. Here were two retail titans of the 1970s who had completely missed the boat of modern big box retailers. Instead of trying to sell dowdy clothes, Sears could have concentrated on hardware and become Home Depot (NYSE: HD). Instead of selling dowdy everything with surly service, Kmart could have become Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT).

Now what both stores need is a makeover. They need to become that bright, wide-aisle store that people love to shop at because they find neat things they didn't know they needed. Heck, if the Kmart in my neighborhood could just manage to keep its shelves stocked and not hire the surly, it would be a step up.

Both Kmart and Sears know they have trouble, but it just may be too late to make the changes. Kmart already went through bankruptcy and closed about 300 stores. They even came up with a bright, open store prototype with wide, well-lit aisles. But then they couldn't afford to really roll it out, says Shopping Centers Today. And many think they didn't close enough bad stores.

The Nasdaq Stock Market announced Thursday that trading volume on ETFs reached a new record in September with an average daily trading volume of 785 million shares. That was part of a new record trading volume of 3.3 billion shares.

IndexUniverse says that ETFs now make up more than one-third of the U.S. market trading volume. They cite data from the National Stock Exchange , which says ETFs represented "a record 35% of all U.S. equity trading volume." That's up from 31% in August. Think about that: more than one-third of stock trades in America are for exchange traded funds.

Trim Tabs just came out with a report showing investors have been pulling money out of stock funds -- but throwing them into ETFs. Trim Tabs estimates investors took well over $40 billion out of all mutual funds in September, but meanwhile put about the same amount into ETFs. For the last 12 months, we've pulled $117 billion out of mutual funds and put $127 billion into ETFs.

For individual investors, the move makes sense. When the market is moving around like it has been, it's scary to be in a vehicle where you can only trade at the end of the day? But I can't imagine that all of that ETF volume isn't helping whip around the prices of the underlying shares.

While the country and market has been slowly bouncing back from Monday's surprising defeat of the Wall Street bailout package, Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) is still down 15% for the week. On Monday, Apple lost 18%, about double what the Nasdaq did. It came back a little Tuesday, then lost 4% again today. Since its August high of $180, it's lost lost 40% of its value.

As Brian White pointed out just last week, the stock's decline doesn't reflect its rising sales. Apple is getting a bigger share of the computer market.

The news on Apple Monday was that two analysts downgraded Apple due to worries that consumers -- now possibly going broke -- would not want to buy more Apple stuff. But Fortune's Philip Elmer DeWitt pointed out that one of the analysts (the one from Morgan Stanley) was one of the farthest off in predicting second quarter results.

CNBC noted that the worries are about the economy, not about anything Apple is doing wrong in itself. CNBC also questioned the analyst's interpretation of the survey he used as one reason for his Apple downgrade Monday. While indeed the survey shows people's intentions to buy Apple products has declined, the drop is quite small, which in this economic environment is really pretty positive.

It seems odd then that the stock getting hit harder than the market. It's not like Steve Jobs was into credit default swaps on sub-prime mortgages.

Normally, I'm the kind of person who thinks it's ridiculous when investors sell in a bear market. I didn't flinch when the dot-come bubble burst, or in the downturn after the terrorist attacks. But this time is different.

In January, I pulled back my stock holdings to the low end of the asset allocation models. In the last couple weeks as the credit crunch unfurled while I was on vacation in Canada with my husband, I looked for an up day in the market to sell. On Friday, I cut our stock holdings in our regular and retirement accounts by about one-third.

On Friday afternoon I completely expected the market Monday to rise on word of a successful bailout. I warned my husband that there would certainly be a rally when the deal was approved and we would lose out. Boy, did that turn out not to be the case. It still may happen, but I really doubt it will completely erase Monday's loss.

Friday wasn't even my first choice for a sell date. As I said, we were traveling and the two other times I wanted to sell, we couldn't get a secure internet connection in time.

I still don't believe I've timed this perfectly. You just can't. If I had timed it perfectly I would've taken everything out of stocks last October. I could have saved around 20-30% of my holdings with that. And I'm absolutely certain that I won't jump back in at exactly the right time. I know the market lurches up in big jumps.

But I don't need to get it 100% right to save myself some money. When the market has been up lately, it's been on that crazy market wisdom that, 'Yeah! A bailout plan is coming!' But the big picture is still bad news: A bailout is needed and even it may not work.

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

Verizon made an ad this summer showing a guy scaling a junkyard fence to get his hands on an LG Dare phone, only to run into two junkyard dogs -- chained and snarling pit bulls. Pit bull lovers didn't like the casual depiction of animal neglect and cruelty. Animal rights groups have been working for a long time to stop people from chaining up dogs in their yard, abusing them and generally using them as a street weapon.

Verizon at first insisted that it would keep running the ad. Then concerned dog owners got the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals involved. PETA first tried to talk with Verizon and explain why the ad annoyed people: the dogs in the commercial had ears docked in a "fight crop" and pit bulls are the most abused breed of dogs.

Verizon refused to meet to discuss the situation, PETA says. So they put out an action alert. After Verizon got 7,000 e-mails from angry animal lovers, they took down the ad.

See other examples of Ads Gone Bad.

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

Mars Inc., has made not just one, but two ad campaigns for its popular Snickers bar seem to sneer at gays. Mars, one of the biggest privately held, family-owned companies, makes many of the world's most popular candies: Snickers, M&Ms, Twix, Starburst (along with Uncle Ben's Rice and pet food like Whiskas), but both of the ads gay rights groups found offensive were for the Snickers bar.

The first gay-themed Snickers ad made a big splash in Super Bowl XLI in 2007. Two mechanics get so wrapped up in eating the opposite ends of Snickers bar that their lips touch, prompting them to decide to "do something manly" lest they accidentally catch gayness -- so they pull their chest hair out.

This week BT PLC (formerly British Telecommunications PLC) (NYSE: BT) got lots of favorable coverage for relenting on its plan to remove thousands of iconic red phone boxes. BT announced in June it wanted to replace about one-third of its remaining 12,000 red phone boxes. The company has slowly been dispatching the boxes for years, prompting small local protests all along and a big outcry this summer.

BT proposed a new deal: for £1 a town could keep the box, but with no working phone. A working phone would cost £500 ($900) a year. According to The Telecom, BT says £500 ($900) pounds is only half the annual cost of operating a red phone box. Really, $1,800 a year to maintain a pay phone? This July, residents in Cornwall were told their phone, which had been broken since June, wouldn't be fixed till late August. In protest, they strung up a bunch of tin cans on strings inside the booth.

Last week the company that hopes to build a nuclear power plant in Idaho, Alternative Energy Holdings Inc. (PINK: AEGC), announced it would sue the environmental group Snake River Alliance for calling them "scammers" in a TV interview -- a local TV interview.

The company explained that they had to hold this environmental group responsible because the "world wide reach of KTVB and KTVB.COM" was causing them "substantial damage." Calling the company "scammers" on KTVB was "aimed at harming the company's stock and defaming company officials bringing down the stock price," according to this Associated Press report in the Idaho Statesman.

I'm sure the company and locals have got into a fiery battle and that the local activists say lots of inflammatory things. But KTVB still doesn't have the power to sully Alternative Energy's name around the globe. But, do you know what does? An Associated Press story on this lawsuit.

No matter what the suit's outcome people will start wondering about the company. Waste News, the influential trade magazine of the waste disposal and energy industries, picked up the story. Idaho blogger Dan Yurman predicts the suit will just lead to more donations to Snake River Alliance and more scrutiny for the company.

You know what else could really hurt the stock price? A story like this one this month in TradingMarkets.com, which says "Last week, New York-based auditors Rotenberg & Co. reported the company had lost so much money that it raised "significant" doubt about its ability to continue. Company officials said nearly $5 million in losses would not stop it from moving forward." Wouldn't a story like that hurt the stock price more than the local Idaho TV news?

This post is one in a series on prominent company nicknames. See all 25, and share your thoughts and memories about Big Brown below in the comments.

The simplicity of a brand name or symbol confers status on a company. Decades ago, the symbol might literally have been a stock symbol: the oldest companies got one letter ticker symbols from the New York Stock Exchange. United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) now gets that status by taking an entire color: brown. (Granted, it's not a primary color like IBM's Big Blue, but it still shows the company's clout.)

The company first started using its trademark brown trucks in the 1920s when it delivered appliances and other goods for department stores, says Mike Brewster, author of Driving Change: The UPS Approach to Business. Pullman brown was a good choice because "their department store clients wanted the company to be more under-stated, because the stores didn't want the fact that they no longer had their own trucks highlighted." That, and the dark trucks were easier to keep looking clean.

Brown is much more than a truck color now. It's the uniform. It's the logo. It's what the company calls itself in commercials. UPS employees bragging about their loyalty will say they "bleed brown." This year the company sponsored a horse named Big Brown, which won two-thirds of the Triple Crown.

But, hard as it is to believe now, UPS almost gave up its trademark color. "The company almost changed the color in the '90s during one of several re-brandings, but decided to stick with brown, much to the disappointment of many in the company," says Brewster. "But the 'What can Brown do for You?' campaign has given the color new life at the company."

This post is one in a series on prominent company nicknames. See all 25, and share your thoughts and memories about the $100 store below in the comments.

You know you do it. You walked into Costco (NASDAQ: COST) to save some money on one thing -- just one little thing. In our minds, we do all sorts of calculations. We see ourselves saving money instead of what we're actually doing, spending money. An hour later we walk out loaded down with bulk bargains -- and $100 lighter. That's where Costco gets its increasingly popular nickname: The $100 Store.

Bloggers and consumers have been using the unflattering "$100 store" nickname for a while. And, it turns out they are right. A recent Christian Science Monitor story cites a statistic from the Food Institute: the average visit to a warehouse club costs $93.

The $100 spending phenomena may be a universal phenomena in any of the big-box discounters. But one Harvard professor thinks the membership fees at Costco (and other warehouse clubs) make us think we're getting a better deal than we are. Michael I. Norton, an assistant professor in the Marketing unit at Harvard Business School, says that the presence of fees make people think they're getting a special discount and then they spend more.

"The presence of fees can drive choice of retail outlets, such that stores with membership fees are more popular even when they offer the same goods at the same prices as stores without fees," Norton writes in his working paper. Maybe that idea of paying to shop somewhere was crazy after all.

Yesterday's announcement by Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) to cut but not eliminate its dividend payment got me wondering if there were other companies out there with absurdly high dividend yields that hadn't cut their payments. High-dividend yields are an old-fashioned way to look at companies and one that's fallen out of fashion as tech companies plowed their profits into research. But a 10% yield -- hey even a 7% yield -- is something we'd all be happy to find these days.

Traditionally, companies with high-dividend yields were those with low-growth potential, like utilities. Like Freddie, many of the current high-yield companies were created by a falling stock price. And like Freddie, they could always cut the dividend to keep the yield from getting out of whack. But, if they think the stock will rebound, maybe they won't cut it for fear the dividend cut would be yet another thing to drive off investors.

The highest yielding big company I found was Biovail (NYSE: BVF), Canada's biggest drug maker. The company was hit with an SEC complaint that key executives were lying about earnings. The company and the founder just settled a fight over the future direction of the company -- with the founder stepping aside. The stock, at about $10, has been cut in half in the last year. In May the company declared a quarterly dividend of 37.5 cents a share, which gives it a 15% yield at the current price.

Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) announced today that it lost $821 million this quarter and cut its quarterly dividend from 25 cents a share to five cents a share, pending board approval. And it's paying the full dividend on preferred stock.

My question is why is this company paying ANY dividend? I know that dividends aren't necessarily just from profits like you might think. But this company lost $1.63 a share, so why is it giving shareholders even a nickel?

We all know this company may be nationalized eventually, however remote that possibility is under the current administration. We all know that taxpayers are on the hook for up to $25 billion or more for the bailout of Fannie and Freddie. And we know the Treasury can now buy shares in Fannie and Freddie to prop them up. But now it's appealing to shareholders' sense of value by keeping a dividend?

On Tuesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission threw a brushback pitch at those who are betting on the further collapse of our big financial institutions. Instead of suggesting better oversight of the companies, the SEC is going after short sellers.

For 30 days starting Monday, short-selling will be restricted on 19 financial companies. Financial regulators are also cracking down on "sensational rumors." To put the short-selling rule in perspective, consider that even when the market re-opened after the September 11th attacks, the SEC considered, but didn't implement, short sale restrictions.

Since Bear Steans collapsed and Vanity Fair bought the company's story that short-sellers did them in, everyone is worried that short sellers are bringing the market down. And I'm sure they are, but short-selling, after all, is legal. The SEC just loosened rules on it last year.

Yesterday, SEC chair Steven Cox testified that he's worried about short-selling in connection with spreading false rumors to manipulate the market. OK, that's not legal, but as Cox pointed out, the SEC brought its first case -- EVER -- for this sort of deception this year. And it still hasn't gone after anyone for spreading false positive rumors about a company.