These days the only thing that makes me feel better about the Dow is looking at Japan s version, the Nikkei 225. Both stock indexes are hovering around 7,500. But while the Dow topped out above 14,000 in October 2007, the Nikkei peaked at just under 39,000 -- in December 1989.

Come to think of it, maybe that makes me feel worse. Japan, after all, prolonged its mess by spending trillions of dollars on misguided stimulus efforts, allowing its debt to balloon to well more than a year s worth of gross domestic product and propping up dodgy banks rather than gutting them. Sound familiar?

Anyhow, along that same things-could-be-worse line, I recently went hunting for big-name companies that are still doing business but which have lost 90% of their stock market value. Consider yourself fortunate if you don t own them. One or two, but not nearly all, might even be worth a purchase by daring, bottom-fishing investors.

(

Decline: 94% (not counting dividends) in just under nine years.

What went wrong? Shares were surely due for a tumble from the frothy 60-times earnings they fetched in early 2000. But the company s inability to deliver consistent cell phone hits hasn t helped. Its last blockbuster, the slim RAZR, was launched in 2004. The Q smartphone and ROKR music phone, launched in 2005 and still sold today, look a bit pointless next to Blackberrys and iPhones. Motorola s launch of 50 new devices last year seems desperate and cluttered. Customers must now choose among nine RAZRs, four RAZR2s and two RIZRs. That s a bit of a CONFUZR.

Worth buying today? Not anymore. The company has cash to fund a turnaround and had planned to spin off its struggling cellphone business from its profitable home-networking operation. But an ugly stock market has forced it to delay that plan, and worse, management scrapped the dividend in early February, so investors waiting for improvements will no longer collect 5% a year for their patience.

(

Decline: 94% in 12 years.

What went wrong? Digital cameras have been around for decades, but in the mid-1990s they began delivering decent quality at affordable prices. That strangled demand for Kodak s print film. In the past five years the company has halved its workforce, sold its medical imaging business, and spent $5 billion on a push into digital products and services, which now make up two-thirds of sales. But margins for digital products are thin and demand for all sorts of electronics has recently dissolved. Canon (CAJ), for example, probably has the best-reviewed stable of digital cameras and camcorders on the market. Its shares are down 54% in two years.

Worth Buying today? Maybe. Sales are in serious decline with a 14% drop expected for this year and early forecasts calling for a 7% slip next year. Also, the dividend yield of nearly 13% might be at risk and not for the first time. Less than six years ago, the company slashed its yearly payment by more than two-thirds. That said, Kodak has more than $800 million in excess cash at the moment (and a yearly dividend expense of $139 million). It will generate about $8 billion in sales this year, albeit at a loss. And the whole company, net of cash and debt, sells for $190 million. That s a giant mismatch between sales and stock market value -- the kind that begs for either fresh management or a clever private equity investor to squeeze out a higher price.

General Motors (GM)

Decline: 96% in just over nine years.

What went wrong? At this time in 2000, GM was on a nice little roll. Its stock price had nearly doubled in three years. Unfortunately, much of the company s financial improvements were owed to a sharp production shift toward its most lucrative vehicles at the time: trucks like the Chevy Silverado. A rise in U.S. gasoline prices to more than $4 a gallon last year killed demand for just such vehicles. Much of the company s misfortune, though, has little to do with cars. U.S. tax policy pushes employers into the role of funding health care, and labor unions make it difficult for car makers in particular to share rising costs with workers. Last year, health care cost GM more than $1,500 per vehicle. Over the past 15 years, the company has spent $103 billion on pensions and health care for retirees. That s 85 times its current stock market value.

Worth buying today? No way, no how. The company carries a crippling amount of debt -- the kind that companies rarely work their way out from under in a way that pays off for stockholders. Car sales recently hit a 26-year low. One statistic suggests that s more of a return to sanity than a temporary dip in demand: America has more cars than drivers.

(

Decline: 93% in less than four years.

What went wrong? In the end, the stock was done in by the popping of the real estate bubble and a corresponding sharp drop in the value of mortgage investments. Record profits turned into giant losses almost overnight. In the second quarter of 2007, B of A recorded revenues of $3.3 billion from trading, equity participation and asset sales. Two quarters later it lost $4.9 billion. Even years before its mortgage disaster, though, the company had developed a history of over-paying for acquisitions, which expanded its scope but did little to improve its stock price.

Worth buying today? Difficult to say. The best reason to own the stock disappeared in January when the company killed what was left of its dividend as a condition of accepting government aid. If there s a case to be made for the company today, it s that if more banks fail, and assuming America s biggest bank survives, it will end up with more pricing power. But the bank could survive in a way that nonetheless wipes out current stockholders. Also, the most reliable way to value banks is based on the value of their assets. The value of those assets right now is subject to further sharp changes in coming quarters based on whether Americans become more or less able to repay what they owe.

(

Decline: 93% in about seven-and-a-half years.

What went wrong? The number of college-age Americans who read newspapers has dropped by more than half since 1972, according to the University of Connecticut s Roper Center for Public Opinion. Meanwhile, less than a fifth of young adults read news daily on the Internet, and more than half of these say they stumble across stories rather than seeking out certain sites. Worse, troubles for car makers and financial firms over the past year have sapped key sources of advertising revenue for media companies.

Worth buying today? Nope. Like many newspaper publishers, the New York Times has a dual-class structure for its stock, which gives stock buyers an economic stake but little voting say. That s meant to protect editorial integrity from profiteers. It also prevents profiteers from profiting. Wish the paper well, but stay away from the stock.