You can't have your Big Mac and eat it, too.

If you shop at Wal-Mart , eat at McDonald's , or buy things online from Amazon.com , then you've relinquished the moral high ground on the issue of low wages.

You are the problem -- and, for the record, so am I.

A fancy name for hypocrisy
In the practice of law, we call this judicial estoppel.

The logic behind the doctrine is simple: A person can't take a position in one case and then assert a contrary position in a subsequent case.

For instance, if you admit to being Gary's business partner in a case against a common enemy, then you're "estopped" from claiming in a later case that you and Gary were never in a partnership.

Simple enough, right?

Well, if you take this same logic and apply it to the debate about low wages, and principally at companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald's, then it's impossible to deny that consumers are complicit in the whole affair and should thereby be estopped from criticizing it.

The age of discount retailing
Whether you'll admit to liking it or not, we live in an age of discount retailing.

And whether you'll admit it or not, virtually all of us have benefited handsomely from it, saving untold billions of dollars since merchants such as Sam Walton and Sol Price, the entrepreneur behind membership warehouses, pioneered the concept in the 1950s and '60s.

When Walton became a retailer, the typical markup on merchandise among variety stores, which was the prevailing model at the time, was 45%. His relentless drive to lower prices brought that figure down to nearly 20% by the end of his reign.

Companies such as Costco and Amazon have since assumed the mantel with renewed vigor. Costco's markup is less than half of Wal-Mart's, as evidenced by the former's 10.6% gross margin, while Amazon's is likely even less than that.

And the same is true at McDonald's. Its early prognosticator, Ray Kroc, didn't fall in love with McDonald's simply because of its food -- though he talks at great length in his autobiography about the quality of its French fries. Instead, he was attracted to its cost-efficient operation and the traffic generated by its low prices.

On his first visit to the original location in San Bernardino, Calif., a customer explained its appeal to him by saying: "You'll get the best hamburger you ever ate for 15 cents. And you don't have to wait and mess around tipping waitresses."

The source of low wages
While the rest is history, so to speak, the one thing that stayed the same at companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald's are the low wages, which my colleague Sean Williams has aptly covered in articles like this and this.

Yet the problem with blindly criticizing McDonald's or Wal-Mart is the fact that they're merely a symptom and not the cause of low pay. The cause is consumers' demand for low prices, which requires retailers to keep costs like wages to the bare minimum.

The typical retort, of course, is that a company like Costco has succeeded at doing both -- that is, offering low prices and paying respectable wages. According to fellow Fool Daniel Kline, the membership warehouse pays hourly workers an average of $20.89 an hour, which is decent scratch for the retail industry by any measure.

But this isn't a fair comparison, as Costco is a wholesaler, albeit one that markets its wares to individual consumers, which allows it to realize additional efficiencies at the cost of a markedly smaller selection.

Sure, its employees make a great living compared with their counterparts at Wal-Mart, but does everybody need a gallon of mayonnaise?

The point being, low wages are the natural consequence of discount retailing. They're a symptom, not the cause. If we don't like that, then we as consumers should go elsewhere and pay more.

Planning a trip? Looking to invest in a hotel brand? If you answered yes to either of these questions, then the following information is imperative.

The American Customer Satisfaction Index rated 24 hotel chains in 2013 based on ratings from 4,500 travelers for reservations, check-in process, front desk staff, room quality, food quality, in-room entertainment, and other amenities. Note: travelers felt as though room cleanliness, comfort, food services, and hotel amenities trumped all other factors.

This article will cover the most popular hospitality companies and their hotel brands, including Marriott International , Hilton Worldwide , Hyatt , Wyndham Worldwide , Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide , and Choice Hotels International.

The customer satisfaction scores range from 0 to 100, with 100 being the highest. The average score in the hotel industry is 77. From an investing standpoint, hospitality companies that take care of their customers are also more likely to take care of their shareholders. Positive word of mouth (including via social media) leads to new and repeat business. Therefore, if a hotel brand scores higher than 77, consider making a note of that hotel chain's parent company.

Also take note that these hotel brands are categorized as: Luxury, Upper-Upscale, Upscale, Midscale, and Economy. Therefore, if a Midscale or Economy hotel brand scores higher than the industry average (77), it's exceeding customer expectations. If a Luxury, Upper-Upscale, or Upscale hotel brand scores below the industry average, it's not meeting customer expectations. Investors should pay careful attention to these numbers since customer satisfaction plays a major role for the success of hospitality companies. 

Exceeding expectations
Below are the top scores across all categories:

No. 1: Marriott's Fairfield Inn & Suites (84). This score indicates that Fairfield Inn & Suites offers the best value across all major hotel brands, which should lead to sustainable demand. And sustainable demand is a positive catalyst for Marriott. Also note that it's a Midscale brand scoring higher than any Luxury, Upper-Upscale, and Upscale hotel brands. That's impressive. 

No. 2: Marriott's JW Marriott (83). This is a Luxury hotel brand. Therefore, higher scores are expected, but once again, Marriott finds itself toward the top of the list. Investors should notice that Marriott should take note of this impressive performance. 

No. 3 (Tie): Hilton's Embassy Suites Hotel (82), Hyatt Regency (82), Marriott Hotels & Resorts (82). All three hotel brands are Upper-Upscale.

None of the information above should be shocking, but now let's take a look at the bottom five scorers.

Not meeting expectations
Below are the bottom five scorers for guest satisfaction:

Bottom scorer overall: Choice Hotel's Econo Lodge (59). Since Econo Lodge is an Economy hotel brand, this is somewhat expected.

Second worst: Wyndham's Super 8 (66) -- also an Economy hotel brand.

Third worst: Wyndham's Ramada Inn (69) -- low score for a Midscale hotel brand.

Fourth worst: Wyndham's Days Inn and Suites (74). It's not good that Wyndham finds itself in the bottom five three times, but this is another Economy hotel brand, and a score of 74 isn't that far south of the industry average of 77. It's also the highest-scoring hotel brand in the Economy category. 

Fifth worst: Starwood's Sheraton (76). This is the biggest disappointment since Sheraton is an Upper-Upscale hotel that fails to score as high as the industry average.

For a different perspective.... 

Category breakdown
Below are the highest scoring hotel brands for each category:

Luxury: Marriott's JW Marriott (83). Grand Hyatt is a distant second with a score of 77. 

Upper-Upscale: Hilton's Embassy Suites Hotel (82). Starwood's Sheraton is a distant second with a score of 76.

Upscale: Hyatt Place (79). Hilton Garden Inn is a close second with a score of 77.

Midscale: Hilton's Hampton Inn & Suites (81). Wyndham's Ramada Inn is a distant second with a score of 69.

Economy: Wyndham's Days Inn and Suites (74). Wyndham's Super 8 is a distant second with a score of 66.

What about growth?

Improvements across the board
Travelers seemed to be more impressed with their hotel stays in 2013 than they were in 2012. Below are overall hotel brand portfolio year-over-year changes for customer satisfaction:

Marriott: Up 5% to 82.

Hilton: Unchanged at 80.

Hyatt: Up 4% to 80.

Wyndham: Up 3% to 72.

The American Customer Satisfaction Index doesn't provide information on year-over-year changes for Starwood or Choice Hotels. The takeaway here is that not only does Marriott score the highest overall, as well as in the Luxury category, but it has shown the most improvement. This should lead to continued demand and market-share sustainability, with the potential for market-share gains going forward. 

The bottom line
If you're going to invest in a hospitality company, then you might want to consider Marriott. If guests are impressed with their stays at Marriott properties, then they're likely to return. They're also likely to share their positive experiences with friends and family, which leads to the potential for increased demand.

While expectations for Wyndham aren't as high, results still aren't as impressive, and investors might want to see how the company performs in the future prior to getting involved.

All hospitality companies rely partially on discretionary spending and are not resilient to economic downturns. Please do your own due diligence prior to making any investment decisions.  

No one said saving was easy — at least no one at MyBankTracker — but it must be done. It doesn't matter whether you're saving money to purchase a house, for an emergency fund, or to take a vacation next summer — you should be saving no matter what.

That said, it's important to save smartly. Protect yourself by avoiding these 6 dumb money savings mistakes:

1. NOT saving now 
No matter what you're saving for, it's imperative that you start saving immediately. Like yesterday. Don't make any more excuses. Just start saving. The longer you wait to save, the more regrets you will have down the road when it comes time to purchase a home or retire. Just think: How much money would you have earned today if you saved just 10 percent from your paycheck into, say, an IRA when you were in your 20s, earning compound interest on your investment?

2. NOT saving enough 
So you say you're saving 10 percent of your income? Well, have you gotten a raise or increased your earnings in the last few years? The amount you save should keep pace with your income. Maybe you can only afford to save a few bucks each week as you enter the working world, but as you experience job growth, remember to revisit what you're saving and increase the amount if you're taking home more.

3. NOT saving in the right way 
Are you saving money in a traditional savings account? Have you considered saving a portion of your income to a high-yield money market account or CDs? These investments can help you build your savings more quickly than a traditional savings account. Of course, be sure to check out the terms of these investments because they are generally more risky. But if you're saving for something like paying to send your kid to college, these investments might be worth looking into to help your money grow.

4. NOT saving in a diverse way 
Diversifying your investments will protect your money should the market tank. By spreading your investments around in a variety of stocks, bonds, and other securities you will lower the risk of losing your investments all at once. Sure, it's not exactly the most exciting way to invest, but it is safer than putting all your eggs in one basket.

5. NOT saving it all 
It might be tempting to dip into your various savings (or retirement) accounts when you need money. But think about how much money you'd have saved up had you left your savings intact. Don't dip into your savings accounts unless it is an absolute emergency situation and you've exhausted all your other options.You'll regret it otherwise.

6. NOT saving for a rainy day 
You've been told several times to save money in an emergency fund, yet you still haven't. What if you lost your job? What if your spouse passed away?Would you be OK financially? If you had saved a bit of your paycheck each month from when you first started working, you'd have quite the savings fund. The Great Recession proved that financial calamities can happen, so prepare your finances today for the unexpected turbulence you might experience in the future. It's recommended that you save at least 3-6 months' worth of living expenses in an emergency fund — and saving more is never a bad idea.

This article originally appeared on MyBankTracker.com

Shares of doughnut aficionado Krispy Kreme Doughnuts fell off their lofty perch in early December after the company forecast 2014 financial results that were slightly below expectations. Krispy Kreme had been enjoying a multiyear share-price expansion, largely a byproduct of better per-store customer volumes. 

Despite competition from Dunkin' Brands Group and Starbucks , the company also has set its sights on more growth in the Asia-Pacific region, recently announcing a business development agreement with Haiya Group, one of China's major retailers. So, can the Kreme keep rising?

What's the value?
Krispy Kreme has been in growth mode over the past few years, primarily in international markets where it has built an operating footprint in more than 20 countries, with large exposures in Mexico and the Middle East. Despite limited expansion in the U.S. recently, the company has piloted a smaller store size, its so-called Hot Shop format, which management hopes will allow it to recharge its domestic growth and reach smaller markets that can't support traditional factory stores. Krispy Kreme has also been attempting to branch out beyond doughnuts, roughly 88% of its sales, with recent introductions of baked goods and a line of espresso beverages.

In FY 2013, Krispy Kreme has posted a solid top-line gain of 9.4%, thanks to greater customer volumes and successful marketing of its premium-priced beverage offerings. In addition, the company's ability to push through menu-price increases, including the most recent one in February 2013, has favorably benefited its gross margin, leading to greater profitability.More importantly, Krispy Kreme's solid operating cash flow has allowed it to fund capital expenditures without taking on debt, the source of which almost led to the company's downfall a decade ago.

Looking into the crystal ball
While Krispy Kreme continues to try to find an effective road map for its U.S. operations, the company's focus remains squarely on its international segment, the area that accounts for almost 70% of its overall store base and virtually all of its recent store openings. Krispy Kreme has been actively building support infrastructure and relationships in key high-population geographies, entering China in 2010 and India in 2013. However, that strategy has the company in a race for brand superiority with some heavy hitters, including doughnut kingpin Dunkin' Brands.

The owner of the Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins brands has been on a steady upward trajectory since its July 2011 initial public offering, reporting rising comparable-store sales and a flurry of new product introductions, including breakfast burritos and pumpkin-flavored, single-serve coffee. Like Krispy Kreme, Dunkin' Brands has also been zeroing in on the Chinese market, with stated plans to triple its store base in that country over the next decade.

In FY 2013, Dunkin' Brands reported solid top-line growth, up 6.9%, courtesy of rising comparable-store sales that benefited from an expanded line of sandwiches and premium-priced beverages.  More importantly, Dunkin' Brands' franchise-heavy operating model continues to generate relatively high profitability and consistent operating cash flow, providing the funds for a further expansion of its overall store base. While the company's international Dunkin' Donuts segment has not performed as well as its domestic counterpart, Dunkin' Brands' solid financial position gives it time to find the right product mix for success in each of its 55 international markets.

Of course, an even bigger threat for Krispy Kreme is coffee giant Starbucks, which has built a network of roughly 4,000 stores in the Asia-Pacific geography and has a clear intention of dominating the region. While food offerings have generally been a weakness for Starbucks, its 2012 purchase of the La Boulange bakery chain looks like it will finally make an impact in that area, as management expects to finish rolling out an overhauled lineup of baked goods to its entire domestic network by the end of FY 2014. 

With its strong financial position and ubiquitous brand name, Starbucks looks primed to use its marketing muscle to win the hearts and minds of the Asia-Pacific region's customers, following the script that it used in the U.S.

The bottom line
The love of coffee and doughnuts seems to be a global trait, evidenced by the success of U.S. retail chains in international markets. While Krispy Kreme seems to have a good market position with its trademark doughnuts, the company's recent negative comparable-store sales performance in its international segment should give investors pause, especially after a strong five-year run for its stock price. Given the importance of the international segment to Krispy Kreme's story, investors should wait for a rebound in the segment's sales trend prior to thinking about taking a position.

InvenSense  reported its fiscal third-quarter results earlier this week. Although the company forecasted some near-term weakness, it still has plenty of growth opportunities ahead as it forecast another year of 25% to 35% revenue growth in 2015. The company, which specializes in Google Android motion sensors, believes that it is positioned to outperform the competition like STMicroelectronics in the coming years.

In the conference call, management outlined four potential catalysts for future growth.

China
Last quarter, InvenSense experienced record sales to China-based companies. Xiaomi alone accounted for 16% of InvenSense's revenue.In a market where low-end Android phones are growing much faster than the high-end, InvenSense's solution offers a less-expensive alternative than sensor hubs due to its software advantage. Per management:

We have more traction with our software and better traction with the products in terms of pricing, because in those categories of devices, customers cannot afford to have any kind of a sensor hub or any kind of a higher-end apps processor that does the functionality that we do. So they take our products lock, stock, barrel and -- with software, and they just plug it in and they go with a lower-cost apps processor.

InvenSense's biggest advantage over STMicroelectronics is its close relationship with Google. InvenSense's work on the Android ecosystem makes its chips essentially plug-and-play, and requires less external processing power. Thus, InvenSense is able to charge a premium, because it's saving money for manufacturers elsewhere.

The relationship with Google is further exemplified by InvenSense's newest 6-axis chip, the MPU-6515, which is the first 6-axis sensor optimized for Android KitKat.

Optical image stabilization
A growing portion of InvenSense's business over the past year has been its 2-axis OIS chips. OIS has strong potential in second and third-tier manufacturers looking to differentiate their products with their camera. OIS facilitates DSLR-like capabilities in smartphone cameras, and the market is just beginning to adopt the technology. Per management, "We feel that the attach rate of the OIS is still in the early adoption ... it's still in the low teens, overall."

Although InvenSense holds a slight technology lead over STMicroelectronics in OIS chip design, the competitor has been very aggressive on pricing. InvenSense will rely on its strong integration with the Android ecosystem as well as its relationship with Samsung among others to maintain its position in the market as the attach rate grows.

Wearables
One of the biggest themes at CES this year was wearable devices specializing in health and fitness. In other words, many upcoming wearables will focus on tracking the users motion, and InvenSense is poised to capitalize on the trend. Management agrees:

We believe the wearable device category, which includes health and fitness tracking, smart watches, wearable computing and immersive gaming, is in the early stages of a multiyear expansion that will create new and exciting growth opportunities for InvenSense.

InvenSense's portfolio leads the way in low-power solutions. Its newest MotionTracking SoC provides a 60% improvement over its previous generation as well as AlwaysOn capabilities. Wearable manufacturers will look to InvenSense to support their designs.

The wildcard
Last quarter, management told investors that it's working on an opportunity with a large mobile OEM. The message hasn't changed. "We also believe that we continue to have near-term opportunity at a large mobile OEM customer, which we're working to realize in the coming months and quarters, but have not incorporated into our outlook."

It's not clear who this OEM is, but depending on its size it could further bolster InvenSense's revenue going forward. If the potential customer is on the same scale as Samsung, say Apple, the increase in revenue could weigh on the company's already declining gross margin. Still, I think investors would be happy with top line growth outpacing the bottom line if the increase is that sizable.

Accelerating growth
An increase of 25% to 35% in revenue for fiscal 2015 would indicate that growth at InvenSense is accelerating over fiscal 2014. Analysts had originally expected 2015 revenue growth to be around 23%, so it's very encouraging. Adding the opportunity at "a large mobile OEM" would increase that outlook, but it's obviously no guarantee. Still, its opportunities in China, OIS, and wearables are strong enough to support the company's outlook.

How generous is Elon Musk? Plenty. He recently granted hundreds of thousands of Tesla Motors stock options to a handful of the car company's senior executives. Yet it's a surprisingly good deal for shareholders, as Fool contributor Tim Beyers says in the following video.

You wouldn't know it from the size of the grants. Chief Technical Officer J. B. Straubel received 220,000 options to buy shares at a strike price of $139.34 at various points over the next decade. VP of production Gregory Reichow took home 65,000 options at the same strike price. CFO Deepak Ahuja and VP of worldwide sales and service Jerome Guillen split 100,000 more in options awards.

But there's also a catch: Tesla grants performance stock options, exercisable only when certain conditions are satisfied. What conditions? The footnotes in the various Form 4 disclosures aren't that specific. Even so, investors should take the grants as a bullish sign, Tim says, because it shows that Musk is fostering a culture that rewards outperformance, rather than time served in the same job.

Now it's your turn to weigh in. Would you have been as generous with Tesla's stock options grants? Why or why not? Please watch the video to get Tim's full take, and then leave a comment to let us know whether you would buy, sell, or short Tesla stock at current prices.

President Obama recently issued an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 per hour. But how the rise actually work, and who'll be affected by the move?

In the following video, Dan Caplinger, The Motley Fool's director of investment planning, goes through the details of the minimum-wage increase. Dan notes that the move will take effect for new contracts in 2015, leaving time for contractors to anticipate the changes. He also points out that the move won't necessarily affect a huge percentage of federal contract workers, as major contractors Boeing , Lockheed Martin , and Northrop Grumman have large numbers of highly paid workers that do federal contract work. Still, Dan concludes that the wage increase will be an interesting experiment on a much-debated economic issue affecting labor relations.

In the long-running, never-ending, and increasingly hositle saga that is the takeover attempt between Men's Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank , the former has decided to try an end run around its rival's intractable management by going over their head and appealing to the company's biggest shareholders.

In a letter to Jos. A. Bank's board of directors, Men's Wearhouse said it might be willing to raise its offer for the men's clothier if it could just get a peek at its books, and recommended its rival's independent directors form a special committee to reconsider its bid. The escalation in tactics is really an attempt to put pressure on the company by those who would stand to gain most from having the deal go through.

Ever since Bank first made the pitch to buy Men's Wearhouse last year, the two clothiers have piqued the interest of private equity investors who are acquiring growing stakes in the two firms. Eminence Capital, which has been leading the charge to have one company or the other to acquire its rival, has a 4.9% stake in Bank and a 9.8% position in Men's Wearhouse. BlackRock recently increased its holdings in both retailers, now holding a 8.7% stake in Men's Wearhouse and 9.4% in Jos. A. Bank.

Yet institutional shareholders have sizable positions as well. Some of the largest in Jos. A. Bank include Royce & Associates, with a near-10% position, one Fidelity mutual fund holds a similar sized stake, Manufacturers Life Insurance, controls 6.5% of stock, and Vanguard has 6% of the shares, while likewise holding a near-6% tranche in Men's Wearhouse. That makes it among the largest behind BlackRock.

Because large investors typically can sway management opinion, it's a smart move for Men's Wearhouse to take. It recently upped its original bid to $57.50 a stub and yesterday indicated that it could increase it beyond the $1.6 billion valuation it's already assigned the deal. It's why it believes the independent directors ought to huddle and reach a decision on their own, with, no doubt, a little encouragement from the institutional shareholders.

The Federal Trade Commission is snooping around the deal, asking for more information and seemingly validating the antitrust concerns Men's Wearhouse expressed when Jos. A. Bank was the pursuer. But because men's clothing is such a diverse and fragmented business, it's hard to believe there can be any real opposition to an acquisition. There are literally dozens of rival retailers and department-store chains that compete in the space, and one can even point to online shops for another layer of rivalry.

Jos. A. Bank has previously noted Macy's  sold about $5 billion worth of suits annually, while Nordstrom  sold $1.9 billion worth of men's apparel in 2012. This past quarter it said that despite an otherwise weak retail environment, men's apparel was a bright spot. Saks, which was recently acquired by Canada's Hudson Bay, also sold about $500 million worth of menswear. 

It's why analysts are fairly certain a merger of the two companies will go through, but it comes down to which retailer will be in control. At this point it appears Men's Wearhouse has momentum behind it, not least because it's adding the weight of large investors to its efforts. Yet if Jos. A. Bank can turn in some decent fourth-quarter numbers, it just might wrangle an even better deal for them in the end.

In the battle over the future of Darden Restaurants , hedge fund Barington Capital just turned up the heat a notch on management by calling for the restaurant operator to split the role of chairman and CEO, positions that are currently vested in just one person, Clarence Otis, who has held both titles since 2005.

The private equity firm is pushing Darden to spin off its Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains and is being joined in the effort by fellow hedge fund Starboard Capital. They've been taking turns ganging up on the restaurant as it's rebuffed the larger message of reform they're pushing and only agreeing to what they would deem to be half-measures.

Where the hedge funds would like some form of a split between restaurant concepts along with the creation of a real estate investment trust to house Darden's valuable properties, the restauranteur has said it's only willing to shed the Red Lobster chain, as Olive Garden still has significant turnaround possibilities that would work well with the smaller concept chains it recently added to its portfolio.

That led Barington to charge that management's plan was "incomplete and inadequate," while Starboard chimed in a few days later with a letter to management telling it to take a timeout and view the realignment holistically. Management again rejected the advice and said it was plowing ahead. Now Barington is back calling for Otis to give up control, though it's not sure whether they think he should have any role at Darden.

One of the reasons usually provided for splitting the role of chairman and CEO is greater independent oversight. The chairman is tasked with ensuring that the company is operated in a manner consistent with the long-term objectives of the board, but when that power is vested in one person charged, distinctions become blurred and conflicts of interest arise. 

While some recent studies suggest that cleaving the two roles has little to no impact on performance and, in fact, could work against a company, others note that beyond just simple returns, companies with independent chairman tend to adopt more good governance policies.

Yet the dual role is increasingly becoming a point of contention between shareholders and their companies. Teen retailer Abercrombie & Fitch , which is itself tussling with an activist investor, just announced the other day it was separating the CEO and chairman roles, seemingly ceding the argument made by Engaged Capital that the man who held both positions, Michael Jeffries, had too much control. Last year oil and gas firm Hess  also agreed to split the titles following a battle with Elliot Management, and others have followed suit.

Some companies, such as Symantec, voluntarily divvied up the roles,while others, such as EMC, are battling shareholder efforts to breakup the positions. Then there are those such as Accenture and Fortinet that actually joined the two positions together.

Jamie Dimon has held both titles at JPMorgan Chase since 2006, and when shareholders agitated last year to split the roles, he stomped his feet and said he'd quit if he couldn't be completely in charge. He ended up winning the day, and the investment giant rewarded him by handing him a 74% pay hike for 2013, raising his pay to $20 million despite mounting regulatory investigations and lawsuits. 

Barington contends Darden has been a "poor steward" of its assets over the past five years, leading to disappointing performance, both in its stock price and its financials. Calling management "bloated and bureaucratic," it's advocating the CEO-chairman split as a means of making the restaurant chain less sclerotic.

That Darden Restaurants has moved to spin off Red Lobster shows it knows there's something wrong at heart, but with the hedge fund operators running game on management, taking turns pummeling the restauranteur, it would seem they will wear it down to the point it will want to tap out.

For 37 quarters in a row, Enterprise Products Partners has increased its distribution to unitholders on top of hitting the company's high-end marks on revenue and net income. With $7.3 billion in project backlogs, $5 billion of which will be completed this year, Enterprise Products Partners is geared to reward unitholders for several more years.  

This segment is from Thursday's edition of "Digging for Value," in which sector analysts Joel South and Taylor Muckerman discuss energy and materials news with host Alison Southwick. The twice-weekly show can be viewed on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It can also be found on Twitter, along with our extended coverage of the energy and materials sectors @TMFEnergy.

Royal Dutch Shell , Europe's largest oil company by market value, is planning to significantly accelerate its pace of asset sales this year and next as it aims to keep spending in check. The asset dispositions appear to have begun in full force, with the company having already announced three major sales this month.

Offshore Brazil sale
On Wednesday, the Anglo-Dutch oil giant announced it has agreed to sell a minority 23% interest in an offshore Brazilian project to state-owned Qatar Petroleum International for approximately $1 billion.

Shell, which acquired the 23% stake in the deepwater project known as Parque das Conchas (BC-10) from Brazil's Petrobras last year, will remain the project's operator. After the sale closes, pending approval from Brazil's oil and gas regulator, Shell will have a 50% working interest in the project, which is currently producing approximately 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day.

The company's announcement follows two other major asset sales this month, including the sale of its stake in a gas project in Western Australia and its stake in a major U.S. crude oil pipeline.

Wheatstone LNG and Ho-Ho pipeline sale
On January 20, Shell announced plans to divest its 8% interest in the Wheatstone-Iago Joint Venture and its 6.4% stake in the Wheatstone liquefied natural gas (LNG) project to the Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Company (KUFPEC) for roughly $1.135 billion in cash.

Wheatstone is currently being developed offshore of Western Australia's Pilbara region and will have a total capacity of 8.9 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) after it goes into service in 2016. Chevron maintains a 64.14% interest and serves as the project's operator, while joint venture partner Apache holds a 13% stake, and state-owned KUFPEC will have a 13.4% interest after Shell's sale closes.

Shell is also looking to downsize its Australian downstream business because of weak margins and heavy competition. It's currently seeking a buyer for its 900 petrol stations in the country and its 120,000 barrels-per-day Geelong refinery in Victoria. Peer BP is also considering the sale of its Australian petrol stations, as well as refineries in Queensland and Western Australia. Shell may also part ways with its 23.1% stake in Australia's Woodside Petroleum , according to some analysts.

Lastly, Shell also plans to sell a stake in the Houston-to-Houma, or Ho-Ho, crude oil pipeline and has tapped Barclays to find buyers for its stake, which is worth as much as $1 billion, Bloomberg recently reported. By selling its stake, Shell hopes to recover the cost incurred in reversing the direction of the line's flow, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also seeking to monetize part of the pipeline to raise funds that can be invested in more profitable exploration and production projects.

Will asset sales prove successful?
It looks like Shell has definitely entered a major divestment phase. The company has come under tremendous pressure from shareholders who are worried about its high level of capital spending relative to its cash flow, which could impact the company's ability to sustain its hefty dividend. Last year, its net capex spending came in at $44.3 billion, about $5 billion more than initially expected, while operating cash flow was only $40.4 billion.

However, Shell expects to reverse this trend through a combination of $15 billion in additional asset sales, and the start-up of a handful of high-margin oil projects, including Mars-B and Cardamom in the Gulf of Mexico, over the next two years. The start-up of new projects should help boost cash flow between 2012-2015 to $175-200 billion, while asset sales should help keep net capex spending at around $130 million.

If Shell is successful with its asset sale program over the next two years, and if it can avoid further cost overruns and delays at its various megaprojects, the company should be able to meet its targeted spending goal through 2015. Going forward, it has pledged to concentrate only on its highest-return opportunities adjusted for risk, which should help gradually improve its return on capital -- an area in which it has sorely lagged its peers over the past few years.

Most novice investors should be 100% invested in stocks, Fool contributor Tim Beyers says in the following video.

Why? Two reasons. First, if you're fully committed to stocks you'll either need to sell a position to open a new one, or add new cash on a regular basis in order to buy new stocks. Second, you'll be more likely to dollar-cost average, which can reduce the risk of investing in volatile high-growth stocks.

Think of Netflix . The streaming sensation defied skeptics once more in reporting fourth-quarter revenue and earnings, which easily beat estimates. Further expansion in Europe is up next -- France and Germany, specifically, according to a recent report in The Wall Street Journal.

Sound good? Just remember that, right now, you'd be buying at north of $400 a share and within spitting distance of a 52-week high. That's dangerous when you consider that Netflix traded for less than half that -- or $159 a share -- last April. Building a position a step at a time via dollar-cost via averaging with new cash would allow you to gain exposure without putting your existing portfolio at risk, Tim says.

Now it's your turn to weigh in. What's your portfolio strategy? Which stocks are you dollar-cost averaging your way into? Please watch the video to get Tim's full take and then leave a comment to let us know whether you would buy, sell, or short Netflix stock at current prices.

This week Ryan Murphy's horror anthology American Horror Story wrapped up its third installment with the conclusion of its "Coven" storyline. The drama, which debuted in 2011, has always played by its own rules and each year seems to find a new way to one up itself in shock value. As a result, though, it's always come with a question mark: will audiences respond to it in a positive way? Well, so far so good and it is having a profound effect on the industry.

"American Horror Story: Coven" (Credit: FX)

Game change

FX (a subsidiary of News Corp ), knew it was a risk to air this show. The network helped give series creator Ryan Murphy his big break with Nip/Tuck and knew how dark the talented showrunner could get with his material. Yet it was a groundbreaking concept -- how could a network that has "there is no box" as a motto not take a flier on the project?

The idea was simple in that it would be a different self-contained story every year with an "A-list" cast bringing it to life (or death, as the case often has been). With Dylan McDermott, Connie Britton, and the incomparable Jessica Lange attached for the first round, FX's decision was looking better with each passing day.

Eventually it not only proved to be a ratings hit, but FX saw a secondary boost in that it was suddenly back in the awards game. While the network has always had stellar programming, it wasn't always recognized. Now Horror was a putting a real fright into category leader HBO.

Because it was a self-contained story, it was eligible for the newly merged "Made For TV/Mini-Series" category at the Emmys, which caused a huge industry stir. Other networks questioned the legality of the entry, but the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences made the right call and the show has earned 17 nominations, with a handful of wins.

"American Horror Story: Murder House" (Credit: FX)

Ratings smash

From the beginning, viewers embraced the unique concept and season one, nicknamed Murder House, averaged around 2.8 million viewers an episode. Yes, the series took a small hit the following year as Asylum fell a bit and netted 2.5 million viewers an episode, but they returned in droves for Coven.

The third mini-series in the Horror anthology is expected to end its run with an average viewership of 4 million. This week's capper snared 4.2 million viewers to be exact and 2.8 million of those fell in the all-important 18-49 demographic advertisers' love. When all is said and done, the episode could be the highest performer yet for the drama.

FX was also quick to note that the mini-series was in the top 20 in the 18-49 demo overall and number five overall when looking just at cable (behind The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, and network sibling Sons of Anarchy).

"American Horror Story: Asylum" (Credit: FX)

The Horror business

American Horror Story's success comes at a good time for FX. The network is preparing to say goodbye to Sons later this year and Justified in 2015. At that point it will be FX's most established series and an anchor show that, along with The Americans and The Bridge, will need to help the network continue hold its footing until some of its newer series gain traction with audiences.

Yet the majority of Horror's success rests with its cast. The show can get actors like Lange, James Cromwell, Kathy Bates, and Angela Bassett because the show is self-contained. The network can lure these big-name film stars to TV because it is appealing to them that it is such a small time commitment and the upside is huge.

FX has literally helped changed the business model and rivals like HBO are beginning to take notice. The network took a page out of FX's playbook and this year launched True Detective. The (mini)-series is also designed to be an anthology and, as a result, was able to attract Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson for the lead roles. It won't be long until other networks update their strategy as well.

Overall, this is a franchise that's proven that short-form series have just as much of a role on TV as long-form and the business impact has already been considerable. The Emmys are now considering separating the "Made-for-TV Movie/Mini-Series" category back into two separate races. This comes after they were unified because the "mini-series" field was seeing fewer and fewer entries.

With the new awards category and the commercial and critical success of American Horror Story, it's likely we'll see the medium continue to evolve. Competitors who don't follow FX's lead might miss out on name actors and Emmys, and could even see a decline in their ad values. Now that would be scary.

Follow @mthalman5513

Although we don't believe in timing the market or panicking over daily movements, we do like to keep an eye on market changes -- just in case they're material to our investing thesis.

January is in the books, and the major indexes really dug themselves a hole to start the year. In the latest bad week on Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 180 points, or 1.13%, while the S&P 500 fell 0.43%, and the Nasdaq slid 0.58%. With only one week in January in the black, the Dow is down 877 points, or 5.29%, year to date. Its peers didn't fare much better for the month, with the S&P down 65 points, or 3.55%, to start out the year and the Nasdaq down 72 points, or 1.74%. The S&P, like the Dow, marked just one week in positive territory in January, while the Nasdaq managed two weeks.

The big macro news this past week was the Federal Reserve's decision to continue tapering, with the announcement that it will reduce its asset purchases to $65 billion in February, down from $75 billion in January and the $85 billion it had been buying every month before that. We also got the second installment of the third-quarter gross domestic product figure, which came in at 4.1% growth, compared with to the 3.2% the first reading indicated. And we heard a number of consumer sentiment and confidence reports, all of them indicating that confidence levels are high but that consumers may not as optimistic as they were in December. 

Before we get to the Dow's biggest losers of the week, let's look at its top performer, Caterpillar , which rose 8.98%. Shares began to rise on Monday after the company reported earnings and never looked back. Although revenue dropped 10% during the quarter, net income was much higher than Wall Street was expecting. The board also approved a $10 billion share-buyback program, and management said it's starting to see an improving world economy. 

Last week's big losers
Procter & Gamble closed the week 3.23% lower, enough to make it the Dow's third worst performer of the week. There was very little negative news pertaining to the company, but a number of investors have been mentioning how overpriced the stock looks. Shares of this slow-growing consumer-goods giant are currently trading at 20.5 times past earnings, or 16.5 times future expected earnings -- reasonable for a high-flying tech stock, perhaps, but not for a company with just 2% revenue growth. The stock does pay a stable and reliable 3% dividend yield, but income investors continue to rotate out of dividend-paying stocks in anticipation for higher Treasury yields, as the Federal Reserve continues its tapering and allowing rates to slowly rise.

Coming in second place, after falling slightly more than 4%, is Chevron . The big decline came on Friday, after reporting a 4% revenue drop and a 32% net earnings decline compared with the same quarter last year. Management said lower production and weak global fuel costs played a large role in the results. To counteract these types of problems in the coming year, management is looking to cut some $2 billion from its expenses. A high amount of uncertainty about where fuel prices and production levels will be six months to a year from now had investors concerned about the company's future earnings. Those are the types of risk that oil and gas investors always need to watch out for.  

Finally, this past week's biggest Dow loser was Boeing , as shares fell 8.33%. Boeing also reported earnings this week, and while revenue of $23.8 billion and earnings per share of $1.88 were both better than what the company posted last year, investors were disappointed with management's future guidance. The company is forecasting revenue growth of 1%-2% in 2014, which is not something an investor who bought shares at a valuation of 23 times earnings wants to hear. The expected slow growth in the coming year may continue to have an effect on Boeing, but if you bought shares based on the idea that the company has hundreds of billions of dollars in its backlog, you should sit tight and ride out this pullback.  

The other Dow losers this week:

• 3M, down 1.55%
• American Express, down 2.22%
• AT&T, down 0.29%
• Cisco, down 1.3%
• ExxonMobil, down 2.83%
• Goldman Sachs, down 2.1%
• Home Depot, down 2.91%
• Intel, down 1.08%
• International Business Machines, down 1.64%
• Johnson & Johnson, down 2.36%
• McDonald's, down 0.27%
• Coca-Cola, down 2.62%
• Travelers, down 0.4%
• Visa, down 2.63%
• Walt Disney, down 0.15%

With the dust officially settled on big-bank earnings season, there was one stand out piece of data from Wells Fargo that was easily missed.

Of all the biggest banks, Warren Buffett's favorite, Wells Fargo, is often considered the safest and most reliable. It attempted to refuse bailout money during the financial crisis, and while it has had its fair share of settlements, it trails Bank of America by a wide margin. When you add in the tumultuous 2013 of JPMorgan Chase , there is no denying that it has emerged as the clear winner of the big four.

As banks move ahead, Wells Fargo has been aggressively adding to one of its business lines in an impressive way.

Rapid expansion
In the latest earnings release, Wells Fargo revealed it had "strong loan growth," as it grew its total loans by 3% to $826 billion over the last year, and its "core loans," from $705 billion to $745 billion (roughly 6%).

Yet if you had to guess where the biggest source of loan growth came from, you'd likely suspect since its Wells Fargo, it'd be some part of the American economy, and it would likely come from mortgages, commercial loans, or perhaps even one of its smaller buckets like automobile or credit card loans.

But in fact, its biggest source of loan growth on both a percentage and aggregate basis was foreign loans:

Source: Company Investor Relations.

In fact, in its commercial loan portfolio, foreign loans went from being roughly 10.5% of loans at the end of 2012 to 12.5% at the end of 2013. And while Bank of America has a commanding lead in total loans and delivered strong growth, Wells Fargo actually outpaced it:

Source: Company Investor Relations.

It is also rather interesting Wells Fargo went from trailing Bank of America in the yield earned from commercial loans in the fourth quarter of 2012 by a relatively wide margin, to actually being ahead of it at the end of 2013:

Source: Company Investor Relations.

Understanding the reason
There is no denying a big reason for this growth was the $6 billion worth of U.K. Commercial Real Estate acquired by Wells Fargo from Commerzbank in July of last year, but as quickly as headlines change, that reality can often be lost on investors.

When the transaction was announced, Mark Meyers, the head of Wells Fargo Commercial Real Estate noted, "Given Wells Fargo's position as the number one commercial real estate lender in the U.S. and our recent expansion of commercial real estate services in the U.K., this transaction is a significant investment in the future growth of our U.K. platform."

And Bill Vernon, who led the acquisition, said the move was "a great strategic expansion opportunity for Wells Fargo's U.K. Commercial Real Estate business."

While the foreign commercial loans are still a very small part of the overall portfolio of loans at Wells Fargo, such rapid growth and expansion in a particular line of business is always worth watching. Wells Fargo is often considered to be one of the only banks that is distinctly focused on the United States, moves like this show that may, in fact, be changing.

Few stocks, if any that I know of, get tagged with the "too expensive" label as often as Amazon . The conventional route for many "value" investors, may be to buy stocks with lower price-to-earnings multiples in the same space, such as eBay or Overstock.com . 

As I write this article, Amazon's stock is down 9% on a "sub-par" quarter that still showed 20% sales growth. Simply put--it was a good quarter, so why the drop?

Since Amazon misses most value investors short-list, only "shock the world" type growth can keep its stock price up.

It shouldn't, this is a stock that even value investors should consider. Here's why Amazon is cheaper than it looks. 

Valuation metric: go beyond the P/E
While I prefer the oft-used price-to-earnings ratio as a valuation tool over ones that attempt to "predict the future" (such as discounted cash flow models or PEG), it may not be a useful tool when it comes to valuing Amazon. CEO Jeff Bezos has made a pointed effort to avoid the "quarterly earnings growth" game that Wall Street plays, in favor of reinvesting (a lot) into the business.

Whether you applaud, or despise that decision, it's a well known fact. So what is a good tool to value Amazon by? In my opinion--sales.

The Price-to-sales ratio
Since his landmark book Super Stocks introduced us to the price-to-sales ratio in 1984, Ken Fisher has used the tool to trounce the market.  The ratio tends to be a better gauge of value because sales tend to be more consistent when it comes to tracking a companies performance, and it avoids valuing a firm on reinvestments in business operations. 

Here's a look at how Amazon stacks up with both P/E and P/S to its peers. 

Sure, Overstock.com still has a lower P/S ratio than Amazon, but it's hard to say it's cheaper because Amazon has so much intangible value. Amazon is a business that can win on many levels (with either products like Kindle, or from its sites) and is a "best of breed" business in e-commerce. You could argue that the success of eBay's Pay Pal unit makes it a "multi-level" performer as well, it does, but Amazon has the better growth rate and a cheaper P/S ratio than eBay.

The point isn't that eBay is a "bad" business or that it's expensive (it's neither of those things), the point is that Amazon is a whole lot cheaper than its own P/E (1,340) would lead you to believe.

In fact, the P/S ratio's of this group have remained eerily consistent over the past five years, as the chart below shows. This would suggest that despite the run-up in share price, and the higher P/E, Amazon is about as cheap (or expensive) as it's always been.

AMZN PS Ratio (TTM) data by YCharts

Brand leader + enormous addressable market = value
If there was one thing I would change about the way value investors think, I would get rid of their obsession with numbers. The truth is, valuing a really great business is harder than simply "screening" for stocks, because it involves putting a value on intangibles like management, and brand identity. There's no doubt that Amazon has both of those assets in spades, yet they those assets do not show up in book value.

More than anything though, you must understand that this is a growth company. To me, you value a growth company in a relative manner, by assessing its addressable market.

 Amazon is the undisputed leader in e-commerce, yet e-commerce still only makes up about 6% of all retail sales.

US E-Commerce Sales as Percent of Retail Sales data by YCharts

This chart, and a surprisingly weak holiday quarter for traditional retail, show e-commerce is growing rapidly. Yet with such a small piece of the pie, there's no reason to think that Amazon cannot continue to grow revenues at current rates.

There will be bumps in the road (ala, an increase in "Prime" membership costs), but long-term, it's hard to deny where e-commerce is going. It's going up.

Foolish conclusion: think different
I am by no means saying that Amazon is a cheap stock--it is expensive. Like golf clubs, food and wine, and cars, you pay a premium for quality businesses. I'm simply saying that, on a relative basis, it's actually valued much closer to its peers than its P/E would suggest.

Translation: even with slower growth, you shouldn't tag this stock with the "too expensive" label based on earnings alone. If you give it some more thought, this one might end up on a few value investors short-lists after all. 

Follow @jrosevear

Follow @orangeblood

Ford Motor Company Executive Chairman Bill Ford (second from left), with CEO Alan Mulally, COO Mark Fields, North America chief Joe Hinrichs, and product development chief Raj Nair at the 2015 F-150 unveiling in Detroit's Joe Louis Arena on Jan. 13, 2014. All five Ford executives played a role in the carefully choreographed presentation. Photo credit: Ford Motor Company.

When an automaker like Ford  introduces a product like the all-new 2015 F-150 pickup to the media, it doesn't just pull a sheet off the truck and say, "Here it is, guys!"

In fact, earlier this month, Ford took over Joe Louis Arena -- home of the Detroit Red Wings -- to unveil its new pickups with an elaborate, big-budget presentation that kicked off two days of media events at the North American International Auto Show.

We (The Motley Fool's John Rosevear and Rex Moore) were there when it happened, and we can tell you that it was a very impressive event. Not so much for the theatrics of the truck's unveiling -- although that was fun -- but because Ford managed to present a complete state of the company update in less than half an hour.

Several of Ford's top executives were there, and each made a brief presentation. Below, you can see the first of those presentations, starring Executive Chairman Bill Ford. Ford's role was to give the top-level overview and to set the stage for the presentations by CEO Alan Mulally and others who followed.

Bill Ford doesn't speak in public quite as often as other Ford executives, but when he does, it's worth listening. If you're a Ford shareholder or customer, you'll find this high-level, visionary overview by Ford's executive chairman (and Henry Ford's great-grandson) to be quite interesting. Check it out, and then scroll down to leave a comment with your thoughts.

Shopping for a new TV is a daunting process: There are literally dozens of different manufacturers, and hundreds of different models to choose from. That said, it's still possible to find the best TVs -- a few models in particular stand out.

Panasonic ZT60
The Panasonic ZT60 is the greatest plasma TV ever made. CNet said the ZT60, available in a 60- or 65-inch configuration, was the best-looking TV it had ever seen when it reviewed the television last year. It has everything you'd expect from a high-end TV: 3-D capabilities, a smart TV interface, and touch-based remote. But where it really shines is the picture quality: The ZT60 has the deepest black levels ever seen on a plasma TV, making images truly pop.

Unfortunately, plasma TVs have fallen out of favor, and Panasonic ceased plasma TV production late last year. This set has been discontinued, but a few retailers still have it in stock. The 60-inch usually retails for around $3,000.

Sony XBR 850A
Sony is attempting to spearhead the next great TV revolution: As standard-definition gave way to high-definition television, so Sony wishes to see 4K resolution TVs replace current high-definition sets. Sony's XBR 850A is really the highest quality, affordable 4K TV, running about $3,000 for the 55-inch set. There's also a 65-inch version, but it costs nearly twice as much.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of 4K content currently out there, meaning that this TV's greatest selling point is hard to take advantage of. If you're thinking of buying it, you'll probably want to pair it with Sony's Ultra HD media player -- a set-top box that connects to the Internet and allows you to download 4K movies.

In terms of raw picture quality, it's a step down from the ZT60, but if 4K really takes off, this TV could be the most future-proof on this list.

Samsung 8500 series
Samsung's 8500 series encompasses its high-end plasma sets. Available in 51-, 60- and 64-inch varieties (running from about $1,700 to $,3000), TVs in this series have outstanding picture quality, with excellent black levels and very accurate colors. But what helps Samsung's set stand apart from rival high-end TVs is its numerous features.

Samsung's smart TV platform is excellent, perhaps the best in its class, with access to a bevy of apps rival manufacturers lack, notably HBO Go, among others. The 8500 series also features voice and gesture controls, and the ability to link your TV directly to the cable box. If you own a Samsung tablet or smartphone, it's easy to beam your mobile device's picture directly to your TV's screen. It's also "evolution compatible" -- meaning that as Samsung's technology improves, you'll be able to upgrade your TV's features.

Vizio E-series
Perhaps you aren't looking for a top-of-the-line TV to put in your den. Maybe you're on a budget or need a smaller TV for the bedroom. In that case, the Vizio E-Series is your best bet. TVs in Vizio's E-Series range from 24 to 50 inches, with five other sizes in between.

Obviously, the picture quality isn't as fantastic as the other TVs on this list, but for the money, it's considered quite good. Like Samsung, Vizio has its own extensive smart TV platform, with access to apps such as Netflix and Amazon.com's Instant Video. Arguably, having those apps built-in is somewhat unimportant on a high-end TV -- when you're shelling out $2,000 to $3,000, purchasing a Roku or an Apple TV set-top box for $99 isn't much.

But if you're spending $270 on the 32-inch set, not having to buy that extra Apple TV can make quite a difference in your overall entertainment budget.

Samsung KN55S9C
Digital Trends said Samsung's KN55S9C was the best-looking TV they've ever seen. It had better be -- at $9,000 it's a very expensive piece of equipment. Rather than use plasma or LED, the KN955S9C is an OLED TV -- a radical new technology that's expected to emerge as the dominant TV type in the coming years.

For $9,000, this TV is relatively small (just 55 inches), and oddly enough, it's curved. But it comes with some crazy features -- for example, using what Samsung dubs "Multi View," two people can watch different shows at the same time using 3-D glasses and wireless earbuds.

There are very few people who can afford to spend so much on a TV, but if one truly wants the ultimate television on the market, there is no better buy.

Investors make plenty of mistakes with their savings. But some mistakes are more important than others. The biggest one of all can make a huge difference to your retirement.

In the following video, Dan Caplinger, The Motley Fool's director of investment planning, talks about the one retirement mistake that can have the biggest impact on your retirement: cashing out your 401(k) plan account. Dan notes that millions of people do this when they leave jobs, paying tax and 10% penalties on the money they receive. But as Dan notes, the even bigger impact comes from not having that money growing for you to help support you in retirement. Dan concludes that for most people, rolling over old 401(k) plan accounts is a much smarter move than just taking the money and running.

(Credit: Fox)

The most coveted time period on TV has unquestionably become the post-Super Bowl time slot. Over the past two decades, it's seen everything from established series to promising new ones, each time drawing a huge crowd. In 1999, Fox (a subsidiary of News Corp ) gave its post-Super Bowl bump to a pair of animated shows -- one a fan favorite and the other a promising up-and-comer titled Family Guy. Fifteen years and one amazing story later, the show has grown into a proven money-making empire that still hits a chord with audiences.

Let's backtrack. Family Guy started off like any other show. It was a simple premise about a dim but (mostly) well-meaning family man with a wife, two kids, a baby hell-bent on world domination, and an alcoholic dog who could talk.... OK, so maybe it wasn't like any other show. Regardless, it was still insanely funny, and with the benefit of a Super Bowl-themed episode of The Simpsons airing ahead of it, the show got sampled by over 22 million people.

Of course, tons of people watching an episode of your show is no guarantee they'll continue to tune in, and that's what happened to Family Guy. In fact, the series holds the dubious honor of being cancelled on TWO separate occasions. But the fans wouldn't let it go. The show's small but extremely loyal audience rallied behind it, watching reruns on Cartoon Network and buying DVDs in record numbers. Eventually the network realized the show may not have the largest audience, but it was the right audience.

The 18-49 demographic were in love with Peter Griffin and his family and they had no problem spending money to see more of them. Unlike other networks, Fox actually listened to its audience. Even today, that's still somewhat of a foreign concept.

So how did Family Guy work its magic?

It began with a unique deal with Cartoon Network. Under the terms, the show's 50 produced episodes would essentially be free in exchange for promotion of the DVDs, and then the network would pay an extremely low cost after a set period of time. The gamble worked and those airings, paired with rising home entertainment sales, proved to be a profitable combination. (The first set of 28 episodes sold 2.8 million in 2003.)

However the show wasn't content as just a TV show. Creator Seth MacFarlane had grander plans to make the series even more of a pop culture force. In 2007, with the blessing of George Lucas, Family Guy created what would be the first of three spoofs of the original Star Wars trilogy. Known as the "Blue Harvest" trilogy, the hour-long episodes were initially released solely on DVD and, not surprisingly, they sold very well.

In the years since, the series has continued to thrive with a strong consumer products program that's yielded apparel, action figures, video games, and, of course, more DVDs. It also has dominated in syndication with constant airings on Cartoon Network, TBS, and Tribune Media networks across the country, and all at a price now vastly inflated from when its reruns first hit the airways. MacFarlane and his crew could have easily rested on their laurels, but they take great pride in the series and even greater pride in pushing the envelope.

Last November, the series shockingly killed off Brian, the Griffin's lovable dog. The outcry was deafening. If you had any question if Family Guy fans were still watching, those questions quickly disappeared. The public laid into MacFarlane, who seemed genuinely surprised the fans had so much passion for an animated character. Audiences were even more enraged when MacFarlane seemed apathetic to the matter, but ultimately he knew something viewers didn't ... just a few weeks later, Brian came back and things returned to normal. Of course, on a show where one of the characters has his own time machine, it wasn't entirely a surprise the beloved pooch would rejoin the living.

Brian aside, the series has always pushed the limits as MacFarlane, who is also a talented singer, occasionally adds satirical songs into many episodes that touch on a number of hot topics.

Knowing all of this, it came as a surprise when the Academy Awards asked him to host their ceremony in 2013. When MacFarlane took to the stage to perform a song called "We Saw Your Boobs," the public seemed surprised.... MacFarlane's fans were not. This is a man who created a movie about a pot-smoking, hard-drinking, foul-mouth teddy bear named Ted and saw it gross $500 million worldwide. He knows how to find humor in odd situations.

The MacFarlane empire

People don't always give MacFarlane a lot of credit for what he's accomplished with Family Guy and his arsenal of other projects. However, Fox certainly knows what a talent he is ... at least now. The man has had a huge impact on the company's bottom line. MacFarlane not only produces Family Guy, but he also is behind spin-off series The Cleveland Show and American Dad. While both shows are now ending their run on Fox, they were both big successes for the network. (Dad will move to TBS this year and characters from Cleveland will be spun back in to Family Guy).

MacFarlane is also an executive producer on the network's Dads, which (of course) has been assaulted by critics for its low-brow humor. He's also working with Fox to relaunch Carl Sagan's Cosmos with famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and eventually will help reboot Hanna-Barbara gem The Flintstones. In other words, Fox will never doubt the man again (especially after missing out on Ted and opening the door for Universal to swoop in).

It's fitting that MacFarlane is attached to The Flintstones reboot. Not only was working for Hanna-Barbara productions one of his first jobs, but Family Guy is the only series since The Flintstones to earn an Emmy nomination for "Best Comedy Series." As if you needed any more proof of the show's success.

Family Guy has proven itself to be a truly unique success story, and in this age of binge-watching and time-shifting, it could be the last of its kind. Networks today are trigger-happy when it comes to canceling shows, and as a result their viewers are gun-shy about picking up new ones. Family Guy bucked the trend as a show thanks to Fox bucking a few trends as a network. In fact, as the show prepares to celebrate its 15th anniversary this weekend, it's clear this eventually became a symbiotic relationship.

As Peter once said, "Oh my god, Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits. It says, 'Oooooo.'" And as Brian responded, "Peter, those are Cheerios."