Generic drug stocks have done very well over the past year. Companies like Mylan and Actavis  have seen their shares rise roughly 60% and 120%, respectively. One sector laggard has been Teva Pharmaceutical Industries , however. Its stock has only seen a fraction of the gains achieved by competitors. Trading at a noticeable discount to its peers, are Teva's shares a compelling bargain?

Multiple problems sapping investor confidence
Teva Pharmaceutical investors haven't had much to cheer about lately. Turmoil in the executive suite has shaken confidence. The drug maker's Chief Executive Officer abruptly departed, apparently due to differences with the board of directors. Being in the position less than two years, his sudden exit and the recent appointment of an untested replacement has worried shareholders. An announced U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the company's marketing and promotional efforts for a couple of high profile products only increased anxieties.

One of the drugs under scrutiny is the blockbuster Copaxone. While the inquiry is certainly a concern, the compound's imminent patent expiration is even more troubling. Copaxone will could facing biosimilar competition in May and that means sales of this multiple sclerosis treatment will probably fall substantially. Being Teva's best seller (generating around 20% of all revenues), investors are understandably nervous about the upcoming expiration.

Intriguing opportunities for better times
Teva may be able to make up some of the decline with its budding oncology drug program. Its partnership with OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals on the drug Custirsen might pay off. A promising treatment for prostate and lung cancer, it's currently in a Phase III clinical trial. A couple of Teva's own drugs are intriguing as well. Lonquex, a novel biologic drug for patients getting chemotherapy for non-bone-marrow-related cancers, was recently introduced in Europe. Biologic drugs, or those derived from natural sources like humans or animals rather than purely chemical compounds, are at the forefront of current biomedical research.

The drug Granix is another exciting Teva product. The treatment, which reduces the risk of infection for patients receiving chemotherapy, was approved in the U.S. as a branded biologic. The same compound is considered a biosimilar in Europe, however. Biosimilars, which are basically generic versions of brand-name biologic drugs, offer enormous potential and drug makers are just beginning to explore the space. The development of generic biologics is costly and complex, though. Only those that have both the funds and experience will likely gain a lucrative place in this fledgling market.

Pharmaceutical giant Amgen is aiming to become a biosimilars leader, seeing it as a multibillion-dollar opportunity. Partnering with generic drug maker Actavis, both companies believe that success in generic biologics will be more likely when leading generic firms and major brand companies work together. If Teva can build on its biosimilar experience (besides Granix, it also offers a product called Ovaleap), its entering into a highly beneficial partnership with a major drug company is a strong possibility.

As good as the future could be, Teva investors appear focused on the company's current troubles. Trading at a modest 9.7 times analyst 2015 earnings expectations, which includes a full year of depressed Copaxone sales, the share's appear at a noticeable discount to peer drug companies.

Building a generic powerhouse
Actavis is one of Teva's peers. Created through a $6 billion merger between Swiss-based Actavis and U.S.-based Watson Pharmaceuticals in 2012, the firm became an industry leader. Increasing its scope, the acquisitive drug maker recently closed on a $5 billion takeover of Irish tax-based Warner Chilcott and recently announced the acquisition of Forest Laboratories.

Growth does not appear an issue for Actavis. Total revenues increased 67% year-over-year in the latest quarter, though much of the gain came from its 2012 merger. The Warner Chilcott deal looks to deliver another boost when current earnings per share are expected to climb 35% from 2013 levels, helped by merger-related cost savings. Actavis' longer-term outlook is also encouraging. It has five biosimilar products in development with partner Amgen.

It seems that the stock market is fully aware of the company's bright future. Valued at a hefty (though not outrageous) 14.8 times 2014 analyst estimates, investors might have to wait for a price pullback before Actavis becomes an appealing value-based consideration.

Multiple avenues for growth
Mylan, another Teva competitor, is taking a diversified approach to garner growth. An imminent launch of generic Lidoderm, a well-advertised no-pill option for shingles pain relief, and the springtime release of a generic version of Teva's Copaxone blockbuster should elevate sales in the company's core generic drugs business.

Looking to advance in the biosimilar space as well, Mylan recently introduced Hertaz in India. The drug, a generic version of Roche's Herceptin treatment for breast cancer, is an impressive debut in the potentially lucrative market. Further success is expected as the company has four other biosimilar products in development.

Mylan is also amenable to growth by acquisition. It recently purchased Agila, an India-based maker of generic injectable drugs, for about $1.75 billion. The deal will open markets and improve sales in some key growth regions. Trading at 13.4 times 2014 analyst earnings expectations, Mylan shares look reasonably priced though with upside potential if any one of their multiple growth paths should thrive.

Summary
Teva's shares have lagged over the past year. This is understandable, as the company faces some serous issues. Investors may have overlooked some promising opportunities and valued the drug maker too pessimistically, however. Teva's discounted share price, compared to rivals like Actavis or Mylan, may be of interest to bargain hunters. The company's stock could be primed to rise on any unexpected good news coming from the beleaguered drug maker.

First Solar will release its quarterly report on Tuesday, and investors have had mixed views in how they assess the solar giant's future. Falling costs throughout the industry have led many more people to consider solar installations, but at least for now, First Solar has largely ceded the booming residential-solar market to SolarCity and SunPower , choosing instead to continue focusing on its competitive advantage in meeting utility-scale solar demand.

Success in the solar industry right now is all about growth, and First Solar has made the most of its particular area of specialty in serving big utility customers with massive projects to take maximum advantage of opportunities for solar electricity generation. Yet the company doesn't have that space all to itself, with SunPower and other players looking to get their fair share of such projects as well. The question investors have to answer is whether First Solar can keep its edge while finding enough projects to take full advantage of its production capacity. Let's take an early look at what's been happening with First Solar over the past quarter and what we're likely to see in its report.

Source: First Solar.

Stats on First Solar

Source: Yahoo! Finance.

What's next for First Solar earnings?
Analysts have gotten a bit more optimistic about First Solar earnings in recent months, boosting their fourth-quarter estimates by a penny per share and their full-year 2014 projections by $0.04 per share. The stock has given up ground, though, falling 13% since mid-November.

First Solar's third-quarter earnings report impressed shareholders, with revenue jumping by more than half and net income more than doubling from year-ago levels. Moreover, First Solar increased its earnings guidance for the full year, citing both reductions in production costs and sales of major projects in California and Canada for the surprising results. The company reduced its sales expectations for the full 2013 year, but First Solar expects that to be a timing issue rather than a permanent loss of revenue.

Still, some fear that First Solar is missing out on the boom in residential solar installations and that doing so could cause problems down the road. Yet even though residential solar has soared in popularity, solar costs are now falling to a level at which some utility-scale installations are competitive with fossil-fuel-produced grid electricity, with First Solar having signed an agreement recently to sell electricity in Arizona below the grid price. The fact that SunPower is still trying to be a force in utility solar shows that it's still a potential growth opportunity, and with utilities having to fight back against residential solar, adopting lower-cost solar projects of their own is a natural place to center their efforts.

One fascinating area for growth for First Solar could come from the mining industry. With energy costs on the rise, miners across the world are looking at customized projects to provide power for mining operations. First Solar's presence in Australia gives it a big opportunity to serve miners there, while competitor SunEdison expects to complete a 100 megawatt project to serve Chile's CAP and other companies are looking at similar power agreements.

Not everything has gone well for First Solar, though. Last month, Europe chose not to impose tough renewable-energy targets on all of the European Commission's member nations, instead choosing an overall goal. The resulting drop in possible demand hit First Solar and its peers hard, but First Solar has diversified its exposure well beyond Europe and so shouldn't see as big a business impact as some of its more Euro-centric peers.

In the First Solar earnings report, watch to see how the company's integration of its TetraSun purchase last year is faring. With expectations for higher-efficiency cells, First Solar needs to demonstrate that it can expand its scope of business as a result of the deal. If it can, then First Solar could see a new wave of growth as a result.

Click here to add First Solar to My Watchlist, which can find all of our Foolish analysis on it and all your other stocks.

Upon hearing that Facebook  is acquiring WhatsApp, BlackBerry  shares rallied on the confirmation that there is significant value in message services. One of BlackBerry's key turnaround hopes is BBM. The WhatsApp deal values each user at approximately $42, which implies that BBM would be worth nearly $3.4 billion based on its 80 million users. However, that comparison is rather misleading, since BBM has significantly fewer users than WhatsApp and network effects are precisely what create value per user.

There is absolutely some validity that messaging platforms are worth more now than ever before, but each platform is entirely different. BBM doubled its registered user base after offering cross-platform support for Apple iOS and Google Android, but chances are that user growth will slow after that initial spike. Perhaps BlackBerry can sell its underlying BBM technology as a better way to recoup some value.

In this segment of Tech Teardown, Erin Kennedy discusses BlackBerry's misplaced jump with Evan Niu, CFA, our tech and telecom bureau chief.

Social Security helps millions of Americans make ends meet in retirement. That makes it surprising to see so many people make a basic mistake that can cost them thousands in benefits over the long run.

In the following segment from their video guide to investment planning, Motley Fool director of investment planning Dan Caplinger talks with Fool markets/IP bureau chief Mike Klesta about this crucial mistake. Dan notes that he sees too many people take their Social Security benefits at the earliest possible moment, taking reduced payments at age 62 rather than waiting longer to reap higher monthly benefits. Dan points out that in many cases, these retirees have other potential income sources to tap, including company pensions and retirement investing accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s. By using them more extensively, people could wait and increase what they get from Social Security. Yet Dan points out that it's hard for many to see the future impact of their Social Security choices, and so it's uncertain whether most people will stop making this mistake.

Over the past few weeks I've been working my way through the nine dividend aristocrats on the Dow Jones Industrial Average , and today we'll look at Chevron . The company's consecutive dividend streak started back in 1988, and its $4.00 dividend gives the stock a current yield of 3.50%, the third highest on the index.

So how did we get here? Well, Chevron is the Dow's youngest dividend aristocrat. Before 1988, Chevron made a number of consecutive quarterly dividend payments of $0.15, but the payout has increased every year since then, up to its current quarterly dividend of $1.00. It's been a slow but steady climb over the past 26 years:

CVX Dividend data by YCharts.

Chevron has a stable business, and economists think demand for its key product will continue to rise, so a future chart of Chevron's dividend increases and payments will look very similar to the one you see up above. So the next question for investors is how well the stock price has appreciated over the past few years.

Since late February 1988, the stock is up more than 896%, or 9.2% annualized without reinvestment of dividends. Adding in dividends improves the performance to 2,455%, or an annualized return of 13.3%. Over the past 26 years, the S&P 500 has returned 587%, annualized at 7.69%, without dividends reinvested, so even if you didn't reinvest your Chevron dividends, you still would have outperformed the S&P over that period.

But will Chevron still be a good buy going forward? Let's look at what investors should be watching.

Over the next 30 years, economists estimate that world energy consumption will increase by 56%, and fossil fuels are projected to supply almost 80% of the world's energy through 2040. Fossil fuels are Chevron's bread and butter, meaning demand for its product will keep rising. But there's a finite supply of oil and gas, and what's left is often hard to access. That has already started causing problems for Chevron and will probably continue to bring new challenges in the coming years.

Rising costs for exploration and drilling could also weigh on the company's margins and profitability in the future, because as costs go up, Chevron can't just start charging more for its oil, since oil is traded as a commodity -- meaning the company doesn't set the price; the market does.

Investors should also keep an eye on oversupplies of oil or gas on the market. When we began finding natural gas in abundance in the U.S., the price of the commodity fell through the floor. A number of smaller businesses have since pulled out of the industry because they couldn't make a profit. It's unlikely, but the same thing could happen to Chevron if the company doesn't stay vigilant.

Finally, while Chevron currently pays out just 35% of its profits in the form of a dividend, the industry requires heavy investing and a large amount of free cash. So for Chevron's industry, 35% is a safe place to be, and investors will be well served if the company can can continue to grow profits and free cash flow, so that Chevron can raise its dividend without increasing the payout ratio. On the other hand, even if Chevron falls on hard times, it could manage to raise both the dividend and payout ratio without causing substantial harm, as long as management reinvests back into the business through research and development projects.

Final thoughts
Chevron is a great company that's not going anywhere. There are some long-term concerns about the industry, and none of our analysis takes into account unforeseen events like a massive oil spill. As we saw with BP following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, those events can be devastating to a company and its dividend. These are things that investors in oil and gas companies always need to keep in mind. There are risks in these investments, but with big risk comes big potential reward. That's true for Chevron as much as for any of its peers.

The second version of Samsung's  Gear smartwatch, unveiled yesterday, will run Tizen, its own operating system, not Google's Android.

Wearables seem to be emerging as the next great tech trend, with companies such as Apple diligently working on smartwatches and similar sensors to extend the usefulness of their handsets. With Samsung pushing its own operating system at the expense of Google's Android, it's a sharp blow to the Android ecosystem, and should cause further fragmentation.

The growing importance of wearables
At least at the high end, the smartphone market appears to be near saturation. Both Samsung and Apple have disappointed in recent quarters, as sales of their high-end handsets have come in weaker than analysts anticipated. To be clear, the businesses are still growing, but the days of double-digit expansion look to be long gone.

To reignite growth in their businesses, both Samsung and Apple appear to be turning to wearables -- a growing market that's still in its early stages. Samsung struck first, rolling out the Galaxy Gear smartwatch last year.

For now, Apple's wearables remain unseen, but various media outlets have reported on Apple's forthcoming iWatch project for over a year. Patent filings have suggested that Apple's interest in wearables may extend to headphones as well.

The advantage of having a walled garden
Apple's wearables, whenever they arrive, will more than likely compliment its existing iOS operating system, serving to bolster the appeal of Apple's growing mobile platform. 9to5Mac reports that Apple's watch will run a modified version of its iOS operating system.

If Apple's watch is anything like Pebble or Samsung's first Galaxy Gear, iOS developers should be able to easily create apps taking advantage of Apple's wearable technology. 

Complicating matters
Google's Android ecosystem should be capable of something similar: Indeed, Samsung enticed some Android developers to code for its original, Android-powered Galaxy Gear. But with its focus shifting to Tizen, the growth of wearable technology could only serve to fragment Android further.

Samsung is, without a doubt, the most successful of Google's hardware partners. Last year, OpenSignal estimated that about half of all Android devices in existence were made by the South Korean tech giant, while surveys have indicated that consumers are actually more familiar with Samsung's Galaxy brand than they are with the Android name itself.

Samsung's original Galaxy Gear was widely panned, and failed to generate substantial sales. Still, that hasn't stopped Samsung from trying -- less than six months later, the company is back with two new models. Given its success in smartphones and its growing retail presence, it's not a stretch to assume that of all Google's hardware partners, Samsung has the best chance at succeeding in wearable technology.

But if Samsung's Tizen-powered watch succeeds, it would be a blow to Android developer community. Android developers, looking to take advantage of Samsung's new hardware, would have to familiarize themselves with Tizen, making the Android platform even more difficult to develop for than it already is. They'll have to work within the confines of Samsung's own app store rather than Google's, further complicating matters.

Google's other partners, including HTC, and Google itself are said to have their own watches in the works, ones that will likely run Android. That could make developers' lives even more difficult, as apps written for one watch wouldn't work for another. This wouldn't be a big deal if these watches were truly separate, standalone platforms -- but they're not. For now, the smartwatches that have been released, including Samsung's, serve to compliment -- not replace -- an existing handset.

The same is true for many of their apps: Both the Evernote app and the RunKeeper app for Samsung's original Galaxy Gear worked in conjugation with their handset counterparts, syncing with the Android app on the user's phone.

Boosting Apple's app advantage
Despite the overwhelming market share of Google's Android, developers continue to favor Apple's smaller platform. With a limited number of different iPhone models in existence, developing for iOS is easier and less expensive. In contrast, the wide variety of different Android-powered devices makes it harder to develop for -- an app that works fine on a Samsung-made phone may not work at all on another handset.

As the handset market matures and shifts to wearables, Apple's advantage should re-exert itself. Samsung's decision to use Tizen for its smartwatch has further complicated the Android platform.

On a high level, 3-D printing is relatively easy to understand: It's an additive manufacturing process that builds objects in a layer-by-layer fashion. However, the nuances of investing in the space may be confusing to some.

For instance, Germany-based voxeljet trades in the U.S. with American Depositary Shares, and each ADS represents one-fifth of an ordinary share. As a result, financial portals like Yahoo! Finance often misprice the company's market cap by a significant factor. Because many financial valuation ratios use market cap as an input, it's extremely important for investors to know how much voxeljet is actually worth before starting to assess its valuation.

To calculate voxeljet's real market cap, multiply the value of each ADS by five, and then multiply that result by the number of ordinary shares outstanding, which is currently 3.12 million. At a present price of about $35 per ADS, voxeljet's market cap is roughly $546 million.

Additionally, selective laser sintering, or SLS, and electron beam melting, or EBM, are two competing 3-D printing technologies that appear awfully similar, but are technically significantly different. SLS uses a laser to selectively heat and melt fine powders into objects, while EBM uses an electron beam to accomplish the same thing. As a result, SLS excels at creating more detailed parts than EBM, but the cost per part is significantly higher. SLS was invented by 3D Systems and EBM was invented by Arcam .

In the following video segment, 3-D printing analyst Steve Heller discusses with Blake Bos, head of Motley Fool's industrials sector, these two common 3-D printing misconceptions. (The relevant segment can be found between 17:01 and 20:42.)

Fannie Mae posted incredible financial results in 2013 with comprehensive income climbing to over $84 billion; however, due to a host of one-time charges, investors shouldn't expect remotely similar result going forward.

In this segment of The Motley Fool's financials-focused show, Where the Money Is, banking analysts Matt Koppenheffer and David Hanson look at three tweets regarding Fannie Mae, Citigroup's pay packages, and the Fed.

General Electric is planning on spinning off its North American consumer lending segment of GE Capital in the form of an IPO. In this segment of The Motley Fool's financials-focused show, Where the Money Is, banking analysts Matt Koppenheffer and David Hanson take a question from their mailbag about GE's plan and whether the new company is appealing, as well as stack the segment against the already-public Discover .

Card companies Visa , MasterCard , Discover Financial Services and American Express handily beat the S&P 500 in fiscal 2013 with solid share gains. Visa was up 36%, MasterCard gained a massive 61%, Discover Financial Services climbed 37%, and American Express shot up 46%. In comparison, the S&P 500 was up 30%, its best year since 1997. Although dividend stocks routinely outperform their non-dividend paying brethren, growth stocks with modest dividends but potentially greater runways for growth -- such as Visa -- are good long-term investment tools.

Visa is not your classic dividend champion, yielding just 0.8%. What Visa lacks in hefty dividends it makes up for in other key arenas: it commands the best gross margin among the four card companies with a healthy 43%, and the highest net income of the four. Visa finished fiscal 2013 with a $5 billion net income, a huge 18% jump over last year's figure, while its full-year net income grew 23% to $7.59 per diluted share. Visa looks like a good growth stock, and its valuation relative to MasterCard's still looks quite cheap.

Despite its recent run-up, Visa still has some upside potential.

Income and dividend growing exponentially
Since its maiden year in the market, Visa's income and dividend have grown at a sweltering pace. Its income before taxes has more than doubled since 2009 to hit $7.2 billion in 2009. This sustained growth is part of the reason it was inducted into the Dow Jones in 2013.

 Visa's bottom-line grew at an even faster clip than its top-line, with its dividend more than tripling over the same timeline, to stand at $1.32 in fiscal 2013.

 

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The health care IT space is still very competitive, with Epic and Cerner holding large shares in large hospitals, but new management has made a big difference for Allscripts . Strong bookings put the company on good footing for 2014, while growing interest in population health and a sizable replacement opportunity in electronic health records (EHR) offer more enduring potential.

Q4 strong, but bookings were the star
Allscripts' fourth quarter came in quite strong relative to sell-side expectations for non-GAAP numbers. Revenue fell 4% for the quarter, with growth in maintenance revenue offset by declines in the other line items, good for a modest (approximately 4%) beat with every line above expectations. Gross margin improved on both a sequential and annual basis, but operating income declined 19% from the year-ago level on higher SG&A spending (on a non-GAAP basis, SG&A is almost one-third of sales).

There was a wide range of sell-side expectations for non-GAAP operating profits, but Allscripts clearly beat expectations for its bookings. Bookings rose 52% (and 16% sequentially) in the fourth quarter, almost 14% better than the average estimate. With this strong influx of orders, Allscripts' backlog rose almost 22% at year-end.

Population health continues to draw interest
There are a lot of positive moving parts to Allscripts' bookings, as the company saw good interest in its SaaS offerings (44% of bookings) and good strength in core EHR products. One of the notable positives was also the interest in the company's population health product.

Population health is an emerging category that that uses electronic medical data to manage and improve outcomes for groups of patients through data aggregation, risk stratification, care coordination, and outreach. Allscripts' population health platform represented 40% of third quarter bookings, and that grew to 42% in this quarter.

As an emerging category, I believe population health is an invaluable growth opportunity for Allscripts. Large rivals like Epic and Cerner do not have entrenched relationships within this market, though Cerner is intending to fully ramp its Healthe Intent platform in the coming years. Allscripts is certainly going to have to deal with competition from Cerner, Epic, athenahealth , and others, but survey results suggest that Allscripts has a very good opportunity here.

Has Allscripts put its problems behind it?
Allscripts hasn't always been the best-run health care IT company in the business, but today's management team has taken a lot of steps to turn around the business. These moves appear to already be bearing fruit and could position the company for further share gains and profit growth.

Part of the problem for Allscripts is its legacy of growth through acquisition. That has left the company selling disparate systems and lacking an integrated platform. Consolidating platforms risks alienating customers, so it is at best a multi-year project. In the meantime, management has increased R&D spending and begun offering customers a clearer product roadmap. Allscripts management has also been focusing on improving the quality of the products it offers, and that has been reflected in improving survey scores and solid customer commitments to upgrades.

One of the remaining challenges is for Allscripts to gain share in the hospital/health care system market. MU-eligible provider attestations show that Allscripts enjoys better than 11% share in the ambulatory care market (against about 6% for General Electric, 3% for Cerner, and 2% for athenahealth), but the company's share in the market for hospital health care IT systems is closer to 4% (against around 15% for Cerner).

Cerner has talked about 50% of the EHR market being ripe for competitive replacement, so I will be very interested to see if Allscripts can drive share growth with its Sunrise enterprise platform. Keep in mind, though, that athenahealth has shown itself to be a very strong fast-mover - the company has moved into clinical management (from revenue cycle management) much faster than most of its rivals expected.

The bottom line
Allscripts shares have performed pretty well over the past year as investors have started buying into the turnaround theme. With the ambulatory care market only about 50% penetrated and a large chunk of the acute care market up for competitive take-away, there is definitely an opportunity for Allscripts to make hay with better products, service, and marketing.

Like many turnarounds, Allscripts doesn't look all that cheap right now. If the company can continue to grab share from established leaders like Cerner and stay ahead of them (and others like athenahealth) in growth opportunities like population health, there could yet be worthwhile rewards from these shares.

The cast of 'Dallas.' (Credit: TNT)

Dallas remains one of TV's most iconic shows, thanks in large part to its impact on pop culture. The drama perfected the TV cliffhanger and introduced arguably TV's biggest villain, both of whose success is credited to the late Larry Hagman. While TNT's (a subsidiary of Time Warner ) version of Dallas (which returns tonight) marched on in the wake of Hagman's passing, many are curious if they can keep it up for another season.

Generation gap

TNT's Dallas works because unlike other reboots, it didn't completely ignore the past; instead it embraced it. The addition of previous cast members such as Hagman, Patrick Duffy, and Linda Gray made it a hit and helped cross the bridge between generations of TV viewers. The show was at times a nostalgic blast that netted solid ratings.

In addition to the established talent, producers also added in Josh Henderson, Jesse Metcalfe, Jordana Brewster, and Julie Gonzalo as the next wave of characters set to inhabit the legendary Southfork Ranch. The quartet quickly proved they were up to the challenge and the notorious rivalries the original version was known for were fired up again and in grand fashion.

The new generation of 'Dallas.' (Credit: TNT)

J.R.

The celebration quickly turned to grief though as prior to the launch of the second season, Larry Hagman passed away from cancer. Audiences mourned along with the cast and crew as they came to terms with the death of one of TV's most charismatic performers. With the permission of Hagman's family and longtime friend and co-star Patrick Duffy, the show decided to carry on in the actor's memory. The series reintroduced the famed "Who Shot J.R.?" storyline and used it to give Hagman the sendoff he deserved.

Now with the "Who Killed J.R.?" angle over, the focus moves onto season 3 where audiences will have to decide if they are still interested in a Dallas without J.R. Ewing. Hagman's larger than life personality is still a major factor -- on-set his name remains number one on the call-sheet and on-air his legacy still carries the same swagger he was known for his entire life. Producers have also assured viewers that while Hagman may be gone, J.R. will still have a strong presence in the show's plot, even if largely in memory.

The future

TNT's decision to renew the show for this third season wasn't an easy one, but it was the right one. It should be up to the audience whether they want to stick with the series. Dallas executive producer Cynthia Cidre and her team have crafted a new group of storylines that inhabit the same feisty and soapy spirit that made the show a long-running hit in the first place. If they can keep it up and continue to draw viewers, it makes it more likely TNT will have the ammo it needs to justify a fourth season.

However TNT's also knows right now it can afford to gamble on Dallas. The nostalgia factor is still in play, and quite frankly it has the timeslot to spare. That won't be the case for long -- TNT has two very strong "event series" type dramas prepping for a summer 2014 bow and if Dallas struggles, it'll likely be the odd show out.

This summer TNT will premiere The Last Ship starring Eric Dane (Grey's Anatomy), Rhona Mitra (Boston Legal), and Adam Baldwin (Chuck), and Legends headlined by Game of Thrones' Sean Bean. Both series have been in the works since early 2013 and are very much in line with where the network is looking to go with its original programming.

While legal procedurals like Major Crimes and Rizzoli & Isles are still on the roster, larger-scale, bigger-budget series like Falling Skies are the new push and that will continue into pilot season where the action series Agent X, starring Sharon Stone, is seeing major buzz.

Cable TV no longer holds the monopoly on off-peak programming as the broadcast networks are beginning to realize the appeal of year-round scheduling. As a result something's eventually got to give, but it remains to be seen if that something will be Dallas.

When reporting its fourth-quarter results, Newmont Mining announced its strategic capital allocation priorities. The company plans to maintain financial flexibility, invest in top development projects, and return capital to shareholders. What's important is that those priorities were named in order of significance. Returning capital to shareholders is in last place, and Newmont's dividend policy highlights this fact.

Dividend should decrease with current gold prices
The dividend policy links the distribution to gold prices. The company starts paying a $0.10 per-share dividend at a $1,200 per-ounce gold price and raises it to $0.20 per share at $1,300-$1,400 per ounce of gold. Going further, every $100 upside in the gold price increases the dividend by $0.20 per share.

For all of January and half of February, gold prices were below $1,200 per ounce. If there's no major price upside ahead, chances are that the average gold price for the quarter will remain below $1,300. This would lead to a $0.10 per-share dividend, a hefty 50% cut from the $0.20 per-share dividend that shareholders received last time.

Will Newmont be able to reduce its debt?
When Newmont states that it wants to maintain financial flexibility, it is primarily talking about reducing its $6.1 billion in debt. This is a significant sum to deal with. In its latest effort to push the debt maturities further into the future, Newmont secured a five-year term loan of $575 million. This loan refinances existing debt that comes due in July.

Newmont's operational cash flow in 2013 was $1.6 billion. If we look into 2014, it's hard to predict that this figure will increase substantially. Yes, Newmont has recently become more cost effective, but gold prices for the most part of 2013 were higher than they are now.

Newmont stated that it did not believe that using equity to pay off debt was a sound business practice and added that it had no intention of doing so. In comparison, Barrick Gold diluted its shares by 16% in November to reduce its debt load. Barrick Gold reduced the value of maturities for the next four years to $1 billion, but the overall debt remains high at $12.9 billion. The offering did not progress at a fast pace, but Barrick was finally able to sell its shares.

As Newmont wants to reduce its debt level but doesn't want to issue equity, it will have to do so with the help of its free cash flow. Capital expenditures this year are estimated between $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion. They will decline to $1 billion-$1.1 billion in 2015 and to $900 million-$1 billion in 2016. Does the company have enough free cash to reduce its debt and fund growth projects after we subtract capital spending from operational cash flow? Only if gold prices rise above current levels.

Problems in Indonesia continue
Another irritating fact is that Indonesia tax negotiations seem to lead nowhere. The country has imposed a progressive tax on copper-concentrate exports. This tax turns into a complete ban in 2017. Newmont has argued that this tax violates its existing contract of work, but to no avail.

As a result, Newmont must deliver its production to the country's only smelter at Gresik. Newmont stated that this smelter resumed operation after a maintenance shutdown, and that it expects to ship its concentrate to Gresik as soon as possible. Currently, half of production from Newmont's Batu Hijau mine could be placed at Gresik.

Several companies managed to receive the right to export concentrates from Indonesia, but neither Newmont nor Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold were among them. For Freeport-McMoRan, which operates a huge Grasberg mine deposit in the country, Indonesian operations are very important. Just like Newmont, Freeport plans to negotiate its way through the crisis, but it has had no success on this front so far.

Bottom line
Newmont's shareholders will receive less cash if current gold prices do not improve. What's more, the company's aim to reduce debt and fund several development projects does not combine well with returning cash to shareholders in the current environment. If you are an income-oriented investor, Newmont is probably not your choice.