It comes as no surprise to me that current investment blogger consensus is bullish on the markets. They're not bullish by an extremely wide margin, but they are optimistic nonetheless.

An ongoing investment blogger survey, conducted weekly by Ticker Sense from Birinyi Associates Inc., indicates that nearly 54% of the investment writers it surveys are holding a bullish stance for the S&P 500 for the next 30 days. Meanwhile, just over 15% of the survey respondents are bearish on the S&P 500, and approximately 30% are declaring a neutral position.

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.

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 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."

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.

Editor's Note: In Toddo's honor, this post comes from Ag and Energy specialist Ryan Krueger. Please see more at www.minyanville.com.

In the first six months of 2008, the United States Oil Fund (AMEX: USO) has seen short interest rise 140%, or two times the total float. For its part, the Powershares DB Commodity Index (AMEX: DBC) has watched its short interest climb more than 500% this year. According to Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), the average short interest among exchange-traded funds (ETF) in the U.S. is 10%.

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.

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.