Check out what dropped the Dow Jones Industrial Average  all five trading days last week -- including its hangover-inducing 231 point loss on Thursday.

1. Stock market winners ...
It must almost be wedding season, because home appliance registry legend Willams-Sonoma hit a 52-week high after holiday earnings outperformed other retailers. Dick's Sporting Goods sold plenty of sports gear to Olympic enthusiasts over the holidays, boosting profits by 6.9%. And Krispy Kreme treated investors to a surprise $14.8 million profit ($10 million more than last year for sweet-toothed investors keeping track).

2. ... And stock market losers (airline stocks)
The big pain all week was with airline stocks (and not because of the Malaysia Airlines mystery) -- Boeing  dipped after reports of cracks on 40 of its fancy new 787 Dreamliners. Meanwhile a 787 was forced to make an emergency landing at Honolulu (kudos to the pilot for finding Hawaii Island in the middle of a pretty big body of water). Boeing's invested years of blood, sweat, and tears (as well as over $30 billion) to get the new generation of jumbo jet onto the tarmac. The Dreamliner has been nothing but a nightmare for Boeing, and this week's disturbing cracks on the wings and e-landing is not what it needed. Boeing stock dropped a total 4.2% this week.

Meanwhile American Airlines  fell after ending a once-cool partnership with JetBlue over sharing frequent flyer miles. Now the American/US Airways merger is complete, American is ending ties with NYC's hipster airline. It's all about competition now, but investors were disappointed to see the consumer-friendly deal killed. American made an "emergency landing" of its own, by falling 6.9% on the week.

3. Plenty of corporate drama
Amazon.com  freaked out 20 million of its most hardcore online shopping enthusiasts ("Amazon.com: it's a lifestyle") by raising its Amazon Prime free-shipping membership from $79 to $99 a year -- but Wall Street applauded the move as a sign of profit-capturing by management. Amazon managed to climb 0.5% as the rest of the market tanked.

And Herbalife  fell more than 10% on the week after activist investor/hater Bill Ackman's successful lobbying efforts successfully resulted in an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. The question is whether Herbalife's unique business model of siging up salespeople to buy and push their dietary drink products to customers is savvy, or sleazy. In late 2012 Ackman bet over $1 billion via a "short sale" that the company would fail. But major investments from Carl Icahn and other celeb investors have pumped ths tock to record highs. Icahn lost this week and Ackman finally got some relief on his losing bet. The FTC is investigating the controversial energy beverage/lifestyle firm as a straight up pyramid scheme.

4. Deals, mergers, and acquisitions, baby
Smooth-talking suit-sales firm Men's Wearhouse added to its wardrobe, purchasing smaller rival Jos. A. Bank for $1.8 billion after months of both companies trying to outbid the other (things got awkward). And JetBlue sold the TV-technology that made it famous at 35,000 feet for $400 million to a French aeronautics firm.

5. Chinese econ data tasted
The world's second-largest economy released three key econ reports that will make you break your chopsticks over your leg. First, Chinese exports shockingly dropped 18.1% from a year ago, creating its first significant trade deficit since early '12 (economists blamed the country's extended New Year's festivities, but Wall Street panicked on signs of reduced global demand). While China's industrial production rose 8.6% and retail sales gained 11.8% over the past two months, both figures were below analysts' expectations. The year of the horse hasn't been kind so far.

6. Ukraine's still a-weighing on investors
The geopolitical crisis in shaken Ukraine developed further over the week, as Crimeans moved to vote over the weekend about whether to break away and join Team Russia. The U.S. and EU haven't liked Russian President Putin's support of annexing the strategically located peninsula and have begun threatening a harsher economic response. Wall Street remained wary all week as the big boys battle out diplomacy like a mid-ice, hockey-style fight.

MarketSnacks this week:

• Monday: New Yotk Empire State Manufacturing; earnings (Perry Ellis)
• Tuesday: 2-day Federal Reserve policy meeting begins; earnings (Oracle)
• Wednesday: Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen speaks; earnings (FedEx)
• Thursday: Existing home sales; earnings (Nike, Swatch)
• Friday: Atlanta Fed biz expectations

MarketSnacks Fact of the Day: For the upcoming World Cup in Brazil, the previously approved $2.8 billion budget for 12 stadiums has been raised 285% to more than $8 billion.

So far this year, the Nissan Altima has out-sold its midsize sedan rivals -- and every other car in America. Photo credit: Nissan

What is America's best-selling car?

You'd be excused if you guessed Toyota's  Camry, or Honda's  Accord -- or even Ford's  sharply styled Fusion. But the truth is -- so far in 2014, at least -- Nissan's  Altima has outsold them all.

What's behind that? For sure, the Altima is a solid entry in the tough midsize-sedan segment. But as Fool contributor John Rosevear explains in this video, there might be a little bit more to the story of the Altima's sudden sales success -- success that might turn out to be expensive for Nissan in the long run.

A transcript of the video is below.

John Rosevear: Hey Fools, it's John Rosevear. So there's an interesting shakeup in the auto sales rankings. In terms of new vehicle sales in the U.S., Ford and Chevy pickups are the top two, year in and year out, that doesn't change.

But third place is where the action is. That's America's best-selling car, and for a while now, that spot has been owned by the Toyota Camry, with occasional visits by the Honda Accord. But so far in 2014 we have a different leader, through the first two months of the year Nissan's Altima is America's best selling car.

That's kind of a surprise.

It's not a surprise that the Camry has fallen a bit behind, the Camry has been losing market share for the last year or so, not because it's bad but because its competitors have gotten better. We saw the Honda Accord gain ground last year, we saw Ford's Fusion gain quite a bit of ground, and the Altima has also done quite well too.

But Altima sales weren't all that great at this time last year, they really took off after Nissan made some big price cuts last May. Nissan has also boosted its incentives. Data from TrueCar shows that Nissan's overall incentives, not just on Altima but across its line, its overall average incentives per vehicle were higher than any other automaker other than then Detroit Three, and the Detroit automakers have higher incentives because they're all big players in the pickup market and incentives are traditionally big in that market. So Nissan's incentives really have been quite a bit higher than we'd expect for a Japanese automaker recently.

And their focus is definitely on the Altima, sales analyst Timothy Cain of the GoodCarBadCar blog points out that about 30% of Nissan's total sales volume in the U.S. in February was Altimas, compared to 21% for Toyota with the Camry. And while Toyota is booking amazing huge profits thanks to the favorable shift in exchange rates between the dollar and the Japanese yen that has made each dollar worth more in Japan, Nissan seems to have chosen to spend that advantage on gaining market share.

Nissan's net profits last quarter were just $825 million dollars, compared to Toyota's $5.1 billion dollars, billion with a "b", and their margins -- Nissan's margins -- were the lowest of any Japanese automaker, lower than Ford and GM too, by quite a bit. So at least for the moment Nissan has America's best-selling car, but I wonder if they've kind of made a devil's bargain here. We'll see what their profits look like this quarter, but I'm betting they're not going to be strong. Thanks for watching, and Fool on.

If you haven't checked your email inbox this week (or opened a newspaper or turned on a television), you're probably going to be in for a shock: Amazon.com is raising the price of Amazon Prime.

So it would appear Jeff Bezos wasn't bluffing. As you may recall, the Amazon CEO warned investors last month that, in order to keep up with the rising costs of "fuel and transportation," plus the continuous building out of Amazon's digital libraries for Kindle e-book sharing and video viewing, the company was probably going to have to raise the cost of Prime.

For nine long years, Amazon has held the price of its two-day free delivery service at a steady $79 per year, even as time, and inflation, marched merrily along. The popularity of Prime has helped grow Amazon's sales strongly, but its cost has been a big contributor to the fact that, with a net profit margin of less than 0.4%, Amazon is about nine times less profitable than Wal-Mart -- and makes even less profit per dollar of goods sold than does Bezos' supposedly beleaguered rivals at Best Buy.

Raising the annual cost of Prime by $20 to $99 might not change that. Or it might. It all depends on how customers react.

$99? It's a bargain!
The way I look at it, you can think of Amazon Prime in one of two ways:

• As an all-you-can-eat two-day free delivery subscription, with Kindle lending and video streaming fringe benefits, or
• As an alternative to Netflix for video streaming, with book borrowing and free shipping on the side.

Either way, Prime passes muster. According to a widget set up by our friends at Slate.com, your average Amazon shopper saves money on deliveries with Prime (at the new price) so long as he or she makes at least 25 orders from Amazon a year. This is assuming that the orders you place would cost only the minimum charge of $3.99 per delivery, though. In truth, one single delivery of a bulky, heavy item, needed quickly, can cost enough to justify a Prime subscription all on its own.

Meanwhile, viewed as a video streaming service, Prime's new price of $99 a year is almost identical to the yearly cost of a $7.99-per-month subscription to Netflix. It only takes one order for free delivery of an actual, physical product from Amazon to make Prime a better bargain than Netflix.

That's the view from a customer's perspective. From an investor's point of view, though, Amazon's in a stickier wicket. 

$99? Never!
According to the company, "tens of millions" of customers now subscribe to Prime. Taking a conservative view of that boast, let's assume that there are 20 million paying Prime customers out there today, paying Amazon $1.58 billion for Prime service annually.

Were all 20 million to stick around and pay the $20 price hike on Prime, Amazon would receive a $400 million boost in revenue -- which would presumably drop straight to the bottom line, more than doubling the company's annual profit. This is almost certainly what investors, who have bid up Amazon shares by about 2% since the Prime price hike was announced, are hoping will happen.

But here's the thing: According to a recent survey of Amazon Prime customers that was commissioned by investment bank UBS, 42% of members will likely cancel their Prime memberships in response to the service's $20 price hike. Again, applying this percentage to a presumed 20 million Prime members, this means it's at least possible Amazon could see revenue decline as a result of the price hike, rather than rise.

Remove those 42% of Prime members from the revenue stream and, even with the price hike, Amazon could end up taking in as little as $1.15 billion in Prime revenue -- a 28% decline.

(In case you're curious, I've run similar calculations assuming that Amazon Prime actually has 30 million or even 40 million members; the conclusion is the same. In fact, the more Prime members Amazon has, the bigger the risk of lost revenue if those customers follow through on their threat and drop their Prime subscriptions).

Foolish takeaway
There are of course caveats to these calculations. For example, Amazon often boasts that Prime members spend more on its website than do non-Prime members. Accordingly, each Prime member lost could have an even bigger impact on Amazon's annual sales numbers than the calculations above suggest, focusing as they do solely on the effect on Prime revenue.

Conversely, if Prime members drop the service but keep on shopping -- and paying more for shipping -- Amazon's revenue loss could be much smaller than we fear.

All I can say for certain at this point is that the investors who have been bidding up Amazon shares steadily following the Prime price hike announcement may not be seeing the whole picture. Even if Prime is still a good deal for Amazon's customers, the risks for shareholders may be greater than they seem.

Early retirement isn't for everyone. We could sit here for hours in the comments section and come up with thousands of difference scenarios where "early retirement" simply doesn't make sense for an individual. But when you're caught living the type of life that is slowly wearing you down, from the inside out, the knowledge of how to retire early becomes invaluable.

One path: how to retire early
There are lots of different paths leading to this goal, and the four following steps highlight just one of many different approaches. The fact that just about anyone -- from a 20-something just out of college, to a 50-year old who hasn't saved a dime yet -- can benefit from this method should provide some measure of hope for your financial future.

There was some big market-share news for Baidu on two fronts last week. The good news is that it's rocking in the realm of video. The bad news is that Qihoo 360 is starting to catch up in its stronghold of search.

An updated report from Chinese traffic tracker iResearch shows that Baidu's Iqiyi drew 94 million active users in March. That topples what is now the former market leader, Youku , which attracted 83.5 million unique users during the same month. 

This would probably be a bigger feat if video was actually lucrative in its current form. Youku's been posting narrowing deficits, but it's not expected to turn a profit until next year at the earliest. Baidu's success in streaming video and other non-search areas has helped diversify Baidu's operations, but it has come at the expense of overall margins. Revenue soared 43% to $5.3 billion last year, but earnings growth clocked in flat. The contraction of margins should continue in 2014, with revenue once again outpacing bottom-line growth. Analysts see revenue growth accelerating to 47% this year, but those same pros see a mere 9% advance in earnings per share.

Baidu's investments in online video, mobile app marketplaces, and online travel are playing a major role in expanding revenue at the expense of near-term profitability. However, it may also be masking Baidu's fading appeal as the country's search engine of choice. 

Chinese research firm CNZZ is reporting that Qihoo 360's search engine -- a platform that didn't even exist until two summers ago -- is now handling roughly 25% of the country's Web search queries. The data detailing January shows Baidu's market share slipping to 58%. This is a pretty big deal since Baidu was attracting as much as three-quarters of China's search traffic at its market share peak a couple of years ago. 

This is naturally a trend worth watching, but it's not as problematic as you may think. China's search market is exploding, so Baidu is still growing at a healthy clip. Its slice is shrinking, but the pie itself is expanding at a faster rate. Online marketing revenue soared 51% in Baidu's latest quarter. Its list of contacts is getting thicker. It had 451,000 active online marketing customers during the period, 11% more than it had a year earlier. Perhaps more importantly, the average marketing customer is spending 35% more on Baidu than it did a year earlier. In other words, Qihoo 360's success hasn't held them back from making Baidu a more important component of their online marketing strategies. If anything, Baidu's success in video and other online areas will make it that much harder to for marketers outgrow the dot-com darling. 

Investors should still keep an eye on both the online video and Web search markets. The heady pace of smartphone migration in China is rapidly expanding demand for streaming video and search queries. Baidu no longer has to be gaining market share ground on all turfs, as long as the sum of its parts continues to impress.

Seth Goldman and Barry Nalebuff founded Honest Tea in 1998. In the recently released Mission in a Bottle, the co-founders tell -- in comic book form -- the story of building a successful mission-driven business. Goldman, now president and "TeaEO" of Honest Tea, joins Motley Fool CEO Tom Gardner to discuss sustainability, entrepreneurship, and what it means for a socially responsible, health-oriented business to be bought by Coca-Cola  .

In this video segment, Goldman explains what's right about Coca-Cola's acquisition of Honest Tea, and how the tiny organic tea company has held its own, even after becoming part of the soft drink giant. Honest Tea even came out on top in a disagreement over language regarding high-fructose corn syrup on the Honest Kids label.

A full transcript follows the video.

Tom Gardner: I like to ask the dangerous questions toward the end. I feel like I've earned some unfair questions. Feel free to dodge them. What would you do if you were the CEO of Coca-Cola and why aren't you? We would all want you to be, and I don't mean to knock the existing CEO of Coke...

Early in the book there was a customer who said, "Do you call yourselves Honest Tea because you think everyone else is dishonest?" I wonder -- that tension that exists -- and I'm trying to dodge that a little bit by saying what steps would you take if you were the CEO of Coke?

Seth Goldman: I actually think part of it is what they're recognizing: the world has changed. The beverage industry has changed. It has to change. Sodas -- no surprise -- have not been growing, and they're not going to be growing. Even diet sodas are in decline. So, you have to prepare for a different future.

That's what they did by creating this entity that invested in honest brands like Honest Tea. It's a great example of it.

I don't want to flatter, but I really am impressed with Muhtar Kent, who leads Coca-Cola, because he was the one who said, "Not only do we want to keep Seth around, we want to actually have him continue to hold equity in this company" -- so he appreciated what entrepreneurship means -- and it was only going to happen through his support.

If anything; I'm biased of course, but I'd say let's continue to accelerate these brands that are going to be part of the future.

Gardner: The fear that a consumer has, who loves the product, is that Honest Tea will be co-opted by the parent.

I'll give an example outside of the industry of just how wrong acquisitions can go. If you think about Lands' End -- that was a great business, for those of us who remember it, and then it was bought by Sears. I don't know who has ever shopped from Lands' End, ever since.

What is it that allows you to believe, or demonstrates, that Honest Tea is having an impact on Coca-Cola rather than Coca-Cola the other way?

Goldman: The first thing -- not that I'm not worried, but why am I more optimistic -- and the title of the book, Mission in a Bottle, means that the equity of the product, the value of the product, the selling proposition, is that it's lower sugar, organic, and Fair Trade. That's in the bottle.

It's not about the profits we give away. It's about every time we sell a bottle. If this is where the value is, one company that's learned not to mess with something that's working is Coca-Cola. Remember New Coke was not a very successful experience.

I'm not saying it's an impenetrable fortress, but in a way the best defense is a good offense and the more we build this brand -- and we'll do over $100 million in sales this year -- to get to this scale with these values, every time we go grow it makes it harder to strip away; and there's been no pressure to strip it away. I'm just saying, that's the value we've created.

Gardner: There was maybe one pressure point, and you stood up publicly, and your leadership team did. That was over the reference to high fructose corn syrup on the bottle. Tell us about that.

Goldman: Yes. Honest Kids -- the package -- on the front would say, "No high fructose corn syrup!" We started selling that through the Coca-Cola organization, so there was a question from Coke: "Hey, if we're selling this, we'd rather not have that on the package."

I said, "I understand. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to have a discussion about the science, but I do know the consumer views high fructose corn syrup as a processed sugar, and we're selling something that's less processed, so we're not going to take it off."

To their credit, they said, "Well, you're the owner at this point," -- this was when Coke had 40% -- "so we're not going to take it off." Then when Coke exercised the option, they still didn't insist on removing it.

Actually, just this year we removed all of the added sugar and we sweetened it with organic kosher white grape juice. Now the sugar, obviously, is in the grape juice and nutritionally it's the same, but as a result, the main language is now about "sweetened only with fruit juice." We have, on the side panel, "no high fructose corn syrup."

Gardner: Love it.

There's something to be said for a steady hand at the tiller. Few investors would be encouraged by a company that replaces CEOs like it's changing its coffee filters, so the consistency and experience of a long-tenured executive often look like a great positive when you're digging for long-term value. But does that translate to results on the bottom line and in the stock price? In fact, it often does -- and we've got the results to prove it.

There are a number of CEOs with decade-plus tenures at the same company, but in today's fast-moving corporate world, only a handful has made it to the elite 20-year club. A recent list compiled by Bloomberg ranked these rare leaders who had the support, inside and outside of the company, to hold onto the reins for more than 20 years. Let's look at the five longest-serving CEOs of public companies now and assess their performance during that time.

The wrong kind of CEO.
Source: Peter Kaminsky via Flickr.

5th place (tie): Leonard Schleifer and Laurence Fink, 26.1 years
Both Schleifer and Fink helped found their respective companies, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and BlackRock , in 1988. Regeneron went public in 1991 and BlackRock went public in 1999 after being spun off from Blackstone Group in 1994. Both men brought a wealth of experience to their positions -- Schleifer was a professor of neurology and neurobiology at Cornell before founding Regeneron, and Fink rose quickly through the ranks of First Boston to become a billion-dollar money manager before defecting to Blackstone.

Regeneron has posted gains of 1,460% since going public in 1991, but BlackRock's gains have trounced that with a total return of 2,510% since 1999. BlackRock has undoubtedly done better over the past 26 years, as it's the world's largest asset manager today, with power and influence on Wall Street rivaling that of the far more notorious Goldman Sachs. However, BlackRock certainly got a cushier starting point than Regeneron, as it held $17 billion in assets in 1992, the year in which it first adopted the BlackRock name.

3rd place: Harold Messmer Jr., 26.7 years
Messmer, the long-serving CEO of Robert Half International , came onboard when the staffing agency was barely noticeable -- his biography on the site notes that the company's annual revenue was just $7 million in 1986, the year before he moved into the corner office. By the end of last year, that top line had swelled to $4.2 billion, and the company's share price had risen 3,460% from the earliest days of Messmer's stewardship:

RHI Total Return Price data by YCharts

2nd place: Larry Ellison, 36.7 years
Oracle's Ellison is the most senior CEO in the tech industry, and is a rock star in his own right -- the billionaire founder's exploits have included multiple yacht-race championships, billion-dollar spending sprees, attempted acquisitions of NBA teams, and the successful $500 million-plus acquisition of Hawaii's Lanai Island, which Ellison plans to turn into a hotspot destination for festivals, leadership retreats, and adventurous vacationers.

Since taking the company public in 1986, Ellison has built Oracle into the world's second-largest software company, in the process building his own personal net worth into the fifth largest in the world ... right behind that of the longest-serving CEO in America. Oracle's shares have grown enormously in value since going public, and few stocks on the market can claim better cumulative returns over the past three decades:

ORCL Total Return Price data by YCharts

1st place: Warren Buffett, 44.1 years
The Oracle of Omaha and the world's fourth richest man also happens to have guided Berkshire Hathaway longer than any other CEO in the world save one -- Roger Penske of privately held Penske Corporation, who has a slim one-year lead over Buffett in time at the top. As the longest-tenured CEO of a public company, Buffett is legendary among value investors for good reason -- when he acquired majority control of Berkshire Hathaway in 1965, shares traded at $18 apiece. Today, each A-class share is worth $183,860, representing a total gain of 1 million percent, or an annual rate of return of 20.7% over 49 years.

Source: User DonkeyHotey via Flickr.

Buffett took over Berkshire as CEO in 1970 after liquidating its earlier partnership structure and distributing shares to his former investment partners. Since then, his acquisitions have been home run after home run, with few clear flubs to be found. As an insurer, Berkshire has grown its float from $39 million in 1970 to more than $77 billion today. As an investment vehicle, Berkshire owns more than $117 billion in stock, which is a value roughly double what Buffett originally paid for the various holdings. Berkshire's four largest holdings paid out $1.4 billion in dividends last year.

Scroll down for the full list of CEOs with 20-plus years at the helm. As you can see, nearly all of our long-serving CEOs have been very good for shareholders. There's more to corporate success than executive stability, of course, but this list shows that there aren't many instances where a revolving door in the corner office -- or even just a shakeup every few years -- becomes the better option.

Sources: Bloomberg and YCharts.
Stock growth is calculated from IPO or from beginning of CEO tenure, whichever comes later.
*Note: Annualized growth rate calculated based on CEO tenure and may not equal actual growth rate.

The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, recently reported that 4 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance plans through the federal and state-based marketplaces of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. Open enrollment closes March 31, so the government has just over a month to get an additional 2 million people to sign up to reach its goal of 6 million. Those seeking health insurance can enroll through HealthCare.gov, via the government call center, on third-party marketplace sites such as eHealth, or in person with a government-certified navigator or health insurance agent.

The latest detailed report of enrollment includes information about gender and age distribution for those who have enrolled, as well as the type of plan they have selected -- but it remains to be seen how things will shake out come March 31. Health insurance agents who are certified to sell marketplace plans are very knowledgeable about the plans themselves -- not to mention the insurance shoppers they've been working with since October. Here is how enrollment looks -- from the insurance agent's perspective.

Which types of plans are health insurance shoppers interested in?
Enrollment numbers say Silver plans are the most popular, accounting for 62% of marketplace plans that have been selected. According to Jeffrey D. Peterson, a certified agent for Covered California, California's health insurance marketplace, "Silver is the hot metal tier." The reasoning, he says, is that only Silver plans have "cost-sharing reductions ... [which] lower copays and deductibles, and many people qualify for both the subsidy and the cost-sharing reduction." Find out if you qualify for cost-sharing reductions -- your savings will depend on your income.

Some agents, however, see a trend toward higher-metal tiers. John W. Seltzer of J. Seltzer Associates in Pennsylvania says all of his clients are selecting Gold or Platinum plans. He says "metal levels are meaningless since there is no basis to compare plans of each metal level between carriers or even within the same carrier." While the Obama administration touts the importance of "apples-to-apples" comparisons across plans, it's possible that some consumers can't grasp this concept -- and, therefore, that its utility is lost on many insurance shoppers.

What problems are people encountering?
Problems with the rollout of the ACA have not been limited to website glitches. Some people have encountered issues even after successfully purchasing a plan. Kevin Murray of The HIQS Group in Connecticut spoke of clients whose physician and facility accepted their insurance carrier -- but "they would not accept the coverage [because] it was specifically an Exchange product. ... [T]hese clients were faced with the out-of-network, out-of-pocket maximum of $36,000."

Others face the problem of a large deductible. According to Murray, many receive a "substantial premium subsidy," which makes monthly premiums affordable. In fact, HHS reports that 82% of enrollees thus far have selected a plan with financial assistance. Many of these plans, however, will still require enrollees "to fulfill a large deductible expense." This means that -- besides free preventive screenings -- these policyholders will have to pay the full price for many health services until they reach their thousands-of-dollars deductible.

What do sign-up demographics look like?
According to HHS, 31% of people who have selected a plan are between ages 0 and 34. That puts 69% of enrollees over 35 years of age -- outside of the "young invincible" demographic and more prone to health problems. According to Peterson, many enrollees are coming with pre-existing conditions, including cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, and pregnancy. Chronic conditions, which can be very costly to insurance companies, seem quite prevalent -- Peterson says, "the number fighting cancer seems much higher than we expected."

What needs improvement?
Everyone seems to have an opinion of the ACA and his or her own ideas about what needs to be done to change it. Insurance agent Ken Matheson hopes to see improvements in "technology, training, [and] information communication." He points to software glitches, as well as understaffing for the marketplace.

"I can't think of another industry where people are on hold for several hours, and people are actually so desperate for help that they do hold for several hours," he said.

It's clear that many people stand to benefit from the ACA, but enrolling these people and making sure they get access to the appropriate coverage is proving to be a big challenge -- for the government, for insurance agents, and for the individuals who are going through the enrollment process.

link

With Lady Sif at their side, Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. saw a noticeable ratings boost this week. Can we expect to see more guest appearances in the weeks ahead as Walt Disney continues to build the franchise?

Host Ellen Bowman puts this question to Fool analysts Nathan Alderman and Tim Beyers in this week's episode of 1-Up on Wall Street, The Motley Fool's Web show in which we talk about the big-money names behind your favorite movies, toys, video games, comics, and more.

While Nathan concedes that Jaimie Alexander's appearance as the Lady Sif added excitement, the show's mostly middling viewership may be due to the blandness of Disney's ABC shows. Rather than crafting a series of distinctive properties, the shows breed a too-familiar look and feel that allows none in the lineup to stand out.

Yet both Tim and Nathan say there's little chance Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be cancelled or altered meaningfully. The show offers a lens through which to view and experience the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a role that should prove important in the next three weeks as a planned tie-in with Captain America: The Winter Soldier finally reaches the airwaves.

Now it's your turn to weigh in. Have you been watching Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.? Are you more or less interested in Disney stock as a result? Please watch the video as Ellen puts Tim and Nathan on the spot, and be sure to check back here often for more 1-Up on Wall Street segments.

Biogen Idec's Tecfidera wasn't the first oral multiple sclerosis drug, but is sure has gotten off to a much faster start than Novartis' Gilenya, which was approved by the FDA in 2010 and Sanofi's Aubagio, which was approved in 2012.

In its third quarter on the market, Biogen registered nearly $400 million in sales, putting it well on its way to achieving blockbuster status. It's not hard to see Tecfidera catching more established injected drugs such as Teva Pharmaceuticals' Copaxone and Biogen Idec's own Avonex.

In the following video, Fool contributor Brian Orelli and health-care bureau chief Max Macaluso discuss why Biogen Idec got off to such a quick start where Novartis and Sanofi couldn't.

Pandora Media is on fire.

However, a number of recent events in the streaming radio space certainly threaten to make the streaming upstart the tech-stock equivalent of Icarus going forward.

For starters, Pandora appears to be dealing with a decided slowdown in its product adoption of late that few seem to be taking seriously. On top of that, the streaming radio space is also undergoing a massive influx of new entrants that threaten to halt Pandora's high growth history in its tracks.

And on the competition front, last year's major market entrant, Apple , appears to be eying a way to increase the adoption of its iTunes Radio service in the months ahead, which could certainly bode poorly for Pandora.

iTunes Radio front and center
According to reports, Apple is considering possibly spinning off its iTunes Radio program into its own dedicated app in the upcoming update to its iOS software later this year.

The thinking goes that the natural increase in visibility could do wonders for user adoption, which apparently has proved more muted than Apple originally expected. And in the following video, tech and telecom analyst Andrew Tonner breaks down Apple's possible move and what it could mean for the likes of Pandora in the months ahead.

One of the most game-changing new strategies in health care promoted by the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, is the introduction of value-based health care. This marks a critical shift from the current fee-for-service system, in which providers are paid for each test and procedure, toward a system that rewards providers based on patient health outcomes.

The law's architects hope that this shift will both improve the quality of care and reduce ballooning Medicare costs. With the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services reporting that medical errors and general "bad care" contributed to over 180,000 Medicare deaths in 2010, pressure has been building to produce a fix.

Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs, are the centerpiece of Obamacare's strategy for bending the Medicare cost curve and hopefully improving patient health outcomes. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, recently released data from the first year of the ACO program. Given Medicare's size and pricing power, the results of the Medicare experiment with ACOs may fundamentally transform the U.S. health care system.. On this Friday's episode of Market Checkup, Motley Fool health care analysts David Williamson and Michael Douglass discuss the results and how investors can best profit from this health care megatrend.

More than 270 drugs were approved for sale by the FDA between 2006 and late 2013, but just 13 have eclipsed $1 billion in annual U.S. sales, according to ZS Associates. That works out to less than 5% of approved compounds, far fewer than the 13% rate in the preceding five years. The lack of top sellers comes at a particularly tough time for big drugmakers because patents will expire on $66 billion worth of branded drugs in 2015.

That suggests shares in companies like Biogen , Johnson & Johnson , and Amgen may be worth a premium given all three have treatments set to become blockbusters this year. Here's what investors need to know about these fast-growing therapies.

1. Tecfidera jumps to the front of the line
Biogen is the long-standing leader in multiple sclerosis treatment. Over the past two years, the company's Avonex and Tysabri have been among the best selling MS drugs, generating over $8 billion in sales for the company.

However, the market for MS treatment has gotten increasingly crowded as new oral therapies Gilenya, marketed by Novartis, and Aubagio, sold by Sanofi, have won away some of Avonex's market share. As a result, sales of Avonex slipped from $753 million a year ago to $751 million in the fourth quarter.

Biogen responded to these competitors with the launch of Tecfidera, its own oral MS drug, last March. Despite winning FDA approval less than a year ago, Tecfidera has already become the most widely prescribed oral MS drug in the United States. Biogen sold $286 million worth of Tecfidera during the third quarter, and another $398 million worth of the drug during the fourth quarter. That suggests Tecfidera will easily achieve blockbuster levels this year. 

2. Label expansion lifts Xarelto and Stelara
Johnson's research department has been rolling out a steady stream of top sellers over the past few years, including Xarelto, which got the FDA green-light in July 2011, and Stelara, which won FDA approval in 2009.

Xarelto competes against Boehringer's Pradaxa and Pfizer and Bristol's Eliquis for market share in post-operative orthopedic surgery and cardiovascular indications. Warfarin has long dominated that market, and while Warfarin has a proven track record, it also comes with a spotty safety profile.

Johnson's plaque psoriasis drug Stelara is also growing quickly after the FDA expanded the drug's label last September to include psoriatic arthritis. U.S. sales of Stelara grew 68% year-over-year to $265 million in the fourth quarter, bringing full year U.S. sales to $957 million, up 53% from 2012. In November 2012, the FDA expanded Xarelto's label to include treating and reducing recurring blood clots. That's an important indication that helped Sanofi's Lovenox generate $2.7 billion in annual sales prior to going off-patent in 2010.  While it remains to be seen if Xarelto will eventually become that successful, its sales jumped from $239 million in 2012 to $864 million in 2013.

That approval increases Stelara's addressable patient population by 2 million people. Stelara is also posting impressive growth overseas, with revenue in those markets climbing 37% to $547 million in 2013. Overall, Stelara's global revenue grew nearly 50% to $1.5 billion last year. 

The expansion of those both Xarelto and Stelara's label offers momentum likely to carry-over this year, suggesting both may eclipse $1 billion in sales this year.

3. Sensipar dodges bundling, sees sales grow
Medicare used to pay for dialysis and dialysis related drugs separately, but it switched to a less costly bundled payment in 2011. Since Medicare accounts for roughly 50% of dialysis center revenue, providers have been cutting costs by reducing the use of Amgen's kidney disease drug Epogen.

However, thanks to a regulatory exemption from bundling, sales of Amgen's Sensipar have swelled, even as Epogen's sales have stalled. Sensipar's original two year exemption would have expired this year, but legislators extended the reprieve through 2016 over fears that current bundled payments were too low to cover its cost. If so, legislators argued patients could be adversely affected. 

The exemption helped Sensipar sales grow 15% to $1.1 billion in 2013. Sensipar sales grew even more quickly last quarter, suggesting providers use is accelerating. Revenue climbed 18.5% from the third quarter, and 20% year-over-year, to $307 million. That fourth quarter sales run rate suggests Sensipar sales may cross above the $1 billion threshold in 2014.

Fool-worthy final thoughts
Biogen will begin challenging Novartis and Sanofi's oral MS drugs overseas this year. The EU approved Tecfidera in February, and pricing negotiations are likely under way in key markets like the United Kingdom. That suggests Tecfidera's sales should accelerate as it slowly rolls out in these countries.

Johnson's Xarelto may face stiff competition from Pradaxa and Eliquis, but momentum is likely to continue as doctors become increasingly comfortable with this new class of drugs. Xarelto should also benefit from EU approval of the drug's use in acute coronary syndrome patients last May. Similarly, Stelara's strength should carryover this year given the EU also approved its use in active psoriasis last fall.

Finally, since Amgen's Sensipar enjoys an exemption from bundling through 2016, dialysis centers are likely to continue advocating its use.  That suggests sales of the drug will remain strong at least through next year. 

Investors love stocks that consistently beat the Street without getting ahead of their fundamentals and risking a meltdown. The best stocks offer sustainable market-beating gains, with robust and improving financial metrics that support strong price growth. Does Companhia de Saneamento Basico , commonly known as Sabesp, fit the bill? Let's look at what its recent results tell us about its potential for future gains.

What we're looking for
The graphs you're about to see tell Sabesp's story, and we'll be grading the quality of that story in several ways:

• Growth: Are profits, margins, and free cash flow all increasing?
• Valuation: Is share price growing in line with earnings per share?
• Opportunities: Is return on equity increasing while debt to equity declines?
• Dividends: Are dividends consistently growing in a sustainable way?

What the numbers tell you
Now, let's look at Sabesp's key statistics:

SBS Total Return Price data by YCharts

Source: YCharts.
*Period begins at end of Q3 2010.

SBS Return on Equity (TTM) data by YCharts

Source: YCharts.
*Period begins at end of Q3 2010.

How we got here and where we're going
Sabesp doesn't come through with flying colors, but it's earned four out of eight possible passing grades nonetheless. Over the past few years, Sabesp's revenue and net income have flatlined because of a slowdown in Brazil's economy and due to political uncertainties in South America. The company's erratic annual dividend payouts can be difficult to accurately analyze, but wat we do know is that last year's payout was lower than 2012's, which in turn was quite a bit lower than 2010's -- the company did not pay any dividends in 2011. Will Sabesp be able to return to growth, or will Latin America's largest publicly traded water-services company going to find its pipes completely blocked in the near future? Let's dig a little deeper to find out.

Over the past few quarters, investor money has been steadily tricking into water utilities amid growing demand for clean water across the world -- or into most of them, at least:

SBS Total Return Price data by YCharts

According to a recent World Economic Forum report, the water scarcity will be one of the top global risks in the 21st century. Fool contributor Sara Murphy points out that the global energy sector already depends on water for industrial purposes, and it's likely face decreasing output levels coupled with rising operational costs due to more water shortages. Only 3% of the world's water comes from freshwater sources, and less than 1% of all water sources are presently available for human consumption. The demand for fresh water is already increasing twice as rapidly as global population, which should bode well for Sabesp and American peers American Water Works and Aqua America , as well as French-based Veolia Environnement , which is the world's largest water-services supplier.

Despite this positive long-term trend Sabesp's already lost over 40% of its value over the past year, and it's the only major water-services company to fall into such a hole. Early last year, the regulated water rate increase adversely affected the company's bottom line, and signs of slowdown in Brazil's economy coupled with ongoing political concerns in South America threatened to damage Sabesp's revenue growth later in 2013. Fool contributor Sean Williams notes that Sabesp has been trying to expand its infrastructure and consumer reach, which has resulted in extra debt burdens on its balance sheet. As a result, Sabesp is the only one of these water-services companies to suffer declining earnings per share over the past two years (Veolia rebounded from 2011's negative earnings in 2012, but its results don't show up on the following chart):

SBS EPS Diluted (TTM) data by YCharts

There are some positive signs out of Brazil's economy -- industrial production rose 2.9% in January, which is higher than economist estimates of 2.5% as polled by Bloomberg. However, Sabesp recently announced the offering of up to 30% in discounts to customers served by the Cantareira system if they reduce water consumption by at least 20% over their previous 12-month average. Droughts have sapped Cantareira to just 21.9% of its capacity, which is the lowest level ever recorded, but this belt-tightening certainly won't help the bottom line, even if it is better for the environment.

Putting the pieces together
Today, Sabesp has some of the qualities that make up a great stock, but no stock is truly perfect. Digging deeper can help you uncover the answers you need to make a great buy -- or to stay away from a stock that's going nowhere.

Over the past couple of years, Apache has significantly underperformed its peers and the broader market, with shares down about 25%, as compared to a more than 30% gain for the S&P 500 Index . Relatively weak production growth and concerns about the company's exposure to geopolitical risk in Egypt have been two of the main reasons behind the underperformance.

But Apache's new strategy of cutting costs and concentrating the bulk of its capital on its most profitable opportunities, while divesting riskier international assets, should lead to stronger, more profitable growth in the years ahead. Let's take a closer look.

Photo credit: Flickr/Paul Lowry.

Asset sales draw to a close
In order to pay down debt, return more cash to shareholders, and raise funds to focus on its onshore U.S. assets, Apache has sold off more than $7 billion of assets over the past year. Major transactions last year included the sale of its Gulf of Mexico shelf assets for $3.75 billion, its Canadian assets for $214 million, and a third of its Egyptian oil and gas assets to China's Sinopec for $3.1 billion.

But the company said on Wednesday that its recently announced sale of Argentinian assets to state-owned YPF for $800 million in cash essentially marked the end of its asset disposal program, as the company has accomplished what it set out to achieve with the strategy.

In addition to reducing Apache's exposure to geopolitical risk in Egypt and Argentina, asset sales have significantly improved its financial health and allowed it to return more cash to shareholders. The company reduced its debt by $2.6 billion last year and entered 2014 with $1.9 billion of cash on its balance sheet. It has also repurchased some $1.2 billion of its own shares thus far and raised its quarterly dividend by 25% to $0.25 per share this year.

Several of Apache's peers have also shed riskier international assets to focus on lower-risk, higher-return North American opportunities. ConocoPhillips , for instance, has shed billions of dollars' worth of international assets to finance increased activity in the Bakken, Eagle Ford, and Permian Basin, while Occidental Petroleum is marketing a minority stake in its Middle East business as it zeroes in on the Permian Basin, its most profitable asset.

Greater focus on onshore U.S. assets
With asset sales out of the picture, Apache can now focus on its onshore U.S. assets, which feature relatively low development costs, strong rates of return, and highly visible, repeatable and predictable production growth. This year, the company plans to devote nearly two-thirds of its capital budget to its onshore U.S. drilling program, which is generating after-tax returns in excess of 30%.

These assets, mainly located in Texas' Permian Basin and Oklahoma's Anadarko Basin, drove 34% year-over-year growth in onshore North American liquids production last year, as Permian production surged 13% to a record 134,000 barrel of oil equivalent per day (boe/d), while Anadarko Basin volumes grew by 18% year over year to 93,000 boe/d.

Over the past few years, the company's North American portfolio has become a much larger share of its total production, currently accounting for about 60% of companywide production. That's up from just 34% in 2009. Further, since Permian and Anadarko Basin drilling is strongly weighted toward liquids, Apache's production mix has improved greatly and now consists of 58% liquids, up from 50% in 2009.

What's more is that Apache's onshore U.S. drilling program in still in relatively early stages of development. The company estimates that it has more than 60,000 remaining drilling locations across the Permian and Anadarko Basin, which represents decades worth of drilling inventory at current activity levels and gives the company a massive runway for continued growth.

The bottom line
Though Apache's asset sales have weighed on production, they have greatly improved its financial health and allowed it to focus on its most profitable opportunities in the U.S. As the company's Permian and Anadarko basin assets account for an even larger share of companywide production and earnings in the years ahead, cash flow growth should accelerate, allowing for continued dividend growth.

Exchange-traded funds offer a convenient way to invest in sectors or niches that interest you. If you'd like to add some international dividend stocks to your portfolio but don't have the time or expertise to hand-pick a few, the WisdomTree International LargeCap Dividend ETF could save you a lot of trouble. Instead of trying to figure out which stocks will perform best, you can use this ETF to invest in lots of them simultaneously.

The basics
ETFs often sport lower expense ratios than their mutual fund cousins. This ETF, focused on international dividend stocks, sports a relatively low expense ratio -- an annual fee -- of 0.48%. It recently yielded close to 3.2%. The fund is on the small side, too, so if you're thinking of buying, beware of possibly large spreads between its bid and ask prices. Consider using a limit order if you want to buy in.

This international dividend stocks ETF has roughly kept pace with the world market over the past three years, but lagged it over the past five. As with most investments, of course, we can't expect outstanding performances in every quarter or year. Investors with conviction need to wait for their holdings to deliver.

Why international dividend stocks?
It's a smart idea to diversify your holdings not only by market size and industry, but also geographically. If the U.S. economy stalls or slides, other economies may still be performing well, and could help offset losses in your portfolio. International dividend stocks offer an extra bonus, as dividends can be quite powerful wealth builders. Internationally reaped ones can be a little more complicated than domestic ones, though.

More than a handful of international dividend stocks had strong performances over the past year. Vodafone Group , for example, popped 38%. Vodafone Group has had an eventful past year, with shareholders approving the sale of its remaining stake in Verizon Wireless to Verizon for $130 billion. The U.K.-based telecom titan is poised to profit from Europe's rebounding economy, and it's making further investments in Europe and locations, such as India, too. Still, bears worry about Vodafone's shrinking cash flow, with some wondering whether it's spending too much on acquisitions. (It's in the process of buying Spanish cable company Ono, for example.)

Banco Santander jumped 27%, and recently yielded about 7.2%. It has been fighting weakness in Europe, but that has been abating. Based in Spain, it offers considerable geographic diversification, with substantial operations in faster-growing Latin America and South America. Bulls also like that it's focused on traditional retail banking as opposed to higher-risk businesses such as investment banking. Its CEO proclaimed last year, "After several years of high levels of write-offs and reinforcement of capital, Banco Santander is preparing for a new period of increased profitability."

Oil giant BP gained 22% and recently yielded 4.7%, but that doesn't make it appealing enough to buy, for some investors. The company's fourth quarter featured revenue slipping and net income down 30% over year-ago levels, in part because of weak refining margins, its divestment program, and Deepwater Horizon spill-related costs. BP has sold many assets to generate needed funds, but bears worry about its ultimate spill-related costs, which remain unknown. The company has retained a promising project portfolio, though, and bulls like its strong reserve replacement ratios, too, along with how it has been shrinking its debt and rewarding shareholders. The recent upheaval in Ukraine has many investors concerned, as BP has investments in the region, but the strife could actually work in BP's favor, if it leads to stronger interest in a pipeline to Europe that bypasses Ukraine.

Other international dividend stocks didn't do quite as well over the past year but could see their fortunes change in the coming years. Sanofi , for example, advanced just 3% and yields 3.8%. My colleague Stephen Simpson likes how it generates solid cash flow through its franchises in diabetes, rare diseases, and vaccines, and sees it offering a compelling risk-reward proposition. (Sanofi got much of its rare-disease business via its acquisition of Genzyme.) Sanofi's fourth quarter was mixed, with revenue slipping 1% but adjusted earnings popping by 17%. Bears worry about the looming patent expiration of its blockbuster insulin offering, Lantus, but others see that offset by the potential of its pipeline.

The big picture
If you're interested in adding some international dividend stocks to your portfolio, consider doing so via an ETF. A well-chosen ETF can grant you instant diversification across any industry or group of companies -- and make investing in and profiting from it that much easier.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals has been on a tear, up more than 750% over the past three years.

Much of that success has to do with one drug in the company's arsenal: Eylea, to treat macular degeneration. Despite going head-to-head against an established player in Roche's Lucentis, Eylea has done remarkably well, producing U.S. sales of more than $400 million in the fourth quarter of last year. This year, Regeneron is guiding for U.S. sales of $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion.

The rest of Regeneron's value can mostly be attributed to the pipeline it's building through a partnership with Sanofi . Fool contributor Brian Orelli and health-care bureau chief Max Macaluso discuss Regeneron and Sanofi's drugs that are on the market and pipeline, including alirocumab, their PCSK9 inhibitor that will compete against Amgen's evolocumab if both drugs are approved.

The chief operating officer at Continental Resources said that oil producers would be forced to cut back on production if the United States doesn't allow for crude oil exports.

Will oil production see a sunset? An oil in West Texas. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Is a problem of plenty brewing?
Speaking at the IHS CERAWeek, Rick Bott -- president and COO of Continental -- said that crude oil prices will remain artificially depressed because domestically produced crude isn't finding its way into the global markets. And this eventually lowers the incentive to keep up with production volumes. As evidence, he points out to the fact that the crude oil markets are heavily "backwardated."

To give readers a general idea, in a backwardated market, the futures price for a barrel of crude oil is less than its current or spot price because market participants believe that the spot price will be lower in future. Quite simply, oil producers are wary about hedging their future production for prices that are less than current prices.

To get an idea at what prices sellers may have to hedge their forecasted production today, the following chart should help. It shows how the WTI and Brent futures prices currently look:

Source: CME Group; author's graphics.

Intuitively, the first thing we can figure out from the chart is that future crude oil supply seems to be higher than perceived demand, hence the fall in prices as we go further out in time. But is it a justifiable view?

Looking at the current scenario, this does sound logical. With the advent of unconventional drilling in the form of hydraulic fracturing of shale rock -- popularly known as fracking -- the United States' energy landscape has been transformed. And accordingly, the past five years witnessed a steep rise in domestic crude oil production. Consider this: At the end of February, U.S. crude oil production stood at 8.08 million barrels per day, or bpd, a solid 50% higher than the 5.37 million bpd at the end of February 2009. With production levels forecasted to increase further, oil producers feel the need to hedge their production from price fluctuations, and more specifically, from a drop in prices.

Hedging: A part of the game
Unconventional drilling, after all, is expensive. With cost of production from the shale plays ranging between $60 and $70 a barrel, it's evident that exploration and production companies would want to hedge their future production from price volatility. For example, Continental Resources has hedged 10.8 million barrels of WTI crude and 19.1 million barrels of Brent crude for 2014. Putting these volumes into perspective, the company had totally produced 35 million barrels of crude oil in 2013.

Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp (USA) , another Bakken operator, is expected to hedge up to 75% to 90% of its forecasted production . The company has entered into a swap agreement for 25,800 bpd at an average swap price of $93.41 for 2014. Chesapeake Energy Corporation , on the other hand, has hedged 58% of its forecasted 2014 crude oil production.

Small cap exploration and production company Halcon Resources Corp. , for its part, has hedged approximately 70%-80% of its current and future production for the next 18 to 36 months. The Houston-based company primarily operates in the Bakken/Three Forks, the Eagle Ford, and the Utica shale plays. Another small-cap unconventional driller, Magnum Hunter Resources Corp. , has hedged about 6,300 bpd for 2014. That's more than 80% of its production last year.

In other words, we notice that for oil producers hedging is an integral part of the game irrespective of their size.

Is the current ban worrisome?
So what happens if future prices drop below the cost of production? As you would expect, hedging then becomes unfavorable. So should investors be worried? As of now, they shouldn't. There shouldn't be such fears, since WTI futures are priced at nearly $80 per barrel for as far out as November 2019. Brent futures, on the other hand, are priced at over $92 a barrel over the same duration. Even in the backwardated situation, the lower prices quoted far into the future is greater than production costs. As of now, oil producers have little to worry about.

Final Foolish thoughts
Simply pointing toward a backwardated market is at best a weak argument for the United States to throw open its gates for crude oil exports. While crude prices could come down as domestic production increases to unprecedented levels, a cut in output shouldn't necessarily be the only outcome. If gasoline prices come down as a result of growing production, the U.S. economy, as a whole, will only receive a major shot in the arm that should drive crude oil futures higher. In essence, a growing economy is a whole better catalyst for profits and appreciation of shareholder value than to allow exports which may or may not end up enhancing a company's bottom line.

Roku isn't a public company, but according to Bloomberg, investors might have a chance to buy shares later this year. If so, Roku could emerge as the best way to take advantage of the growing trend toward Web-based video.

Although Roku competes with a number of massive companies, including Apple , Google , and soon Amazon.com , it's becoming increasingly clear that Roku will always have an advantage over its larger rivals.

Too many conflicts of interest
Amazon is widely expected to release a set-top box later this month. Offering another way to stream Internet video, and priced aggressively, Amazon's set-top box will more than likely compete with Roku's family of streaming devices, and could be expected to weigh on Roku's sales.

Or maybe not. According to Gigaom, Amazon's set-top box will be hamstrung by the lack of a major app. While it will allow owners to access both Netflix and Hulu Plus, in addition to Amazon's own Prime Instant Video, Google's YouTube will be inaccessible. Given that Amazon's set-top box will likely be powered by FireOS, Amazon's forked version of Google's Android, a YouTube app is highly unlikely.

Roku's other competitors face similar limitations. Apple TV can access YouTube, for example, but it can't directly access Amazon Instant Video -- it requires the use of an iPhone or iPad and Apple's AirPlay technology. Vudu, a competitor to Apple's iTunes, isn't accessible on the Apple TV even with AirPlay.

Google's Chromecast is similarly limited. Earlier this year, Google opened up the Chromecast to third-party developers, allowing them to add Chromecast compatibility to their existing Android apps. This meant that, despite competing directly with Google Play, owners of the Chromecast will soon be able to access Vudu.

But they won't be able to access Amazon Instant Video -- Amazon hasn't released a video app for standard Android devices, and it probably won't anytime soon. Doing so would take away one of the Kindle Fire's key selling points, weighing on Amazon's tablet business.

Roku has no reason to be biased
In contrast, owners of Roku's streaming devices don't face any limitations. Not only can a Roku owner access Netflix and Google's YouTube, but they also get Amazon Instant Video.

Unfortunately, Apple's iTunes and Google Play aren't available, but owners of Roku's devices can go to several different competitors, including Vudu, Target Ticket, Flixster and the aforementioned Amazon Instant Video -- Roku owners have the ability to shop around.

A new level of hardware
If Roku does get outclassed, it will be because its rivals offer far more impressive hardware. Amazon's set-top box could double as a video game console, while both Apple and Google are rumored to be working on more advanced TV products -- the next Apple TV could add in voice and gesture controls, while Google is said to be working on a Nexus video game console.

But adding that extra functionality could come at cost. The Xbox One and PlayStation 4 offer streaming set-top box functionality (in addition to playing video games), but at $499 and $399 respectively, they're several times more expensive than the $99 Roku 3.

By not competing in the content business, Roku can offer more services than its rivals -- even with competition from Amazon, Apple and Google intensifying, the fact that it doesn't have to play favorites is a compelling advantage.

Macro concerns linked to the Crimean crisis and China were prominent this week and U.S. stocks suffered their worst weekly performance in seven weeks, with the benchmark S&P 500 falling 2% from last Friday's record high. The narrower Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 2.3%. However, company-specific news had shares of Keurig Green Mountain and Newmont Mining making solid gains on the week, while those of Herbalife fell sharply.

Keurig Green Mountain was the sixth best-performing stock in the Russell 1000 this week (+6.8%). Most of those gains were achieved on Friday, after the company announced a new manufacturing and distribution agreement with Peet's Coffee & Tea. Keurig will produce packs with Peet's coffee and tea varieties to be used with its brewers; in addition to Keurig's existing distribution channels, Peet's will sell the packs through its distribution system. Before the agreement, Peet's was the largest unlicensed super-premium coffee brand unavailable on the Keurig system.

The partnership was only made possible as Starbucks relinquished its exclusive license for Keurig's top-end coffee packs, in a modification of the five-year agreement the companies reached last year. Starbucks and Keurig Green Mountain announced the change in terms on Friday also.

Expect further stock gains on Monday morning, to reflect a third piece of news that broke after hours on Friday: S&P Dow Jones Indices announced that it will be adding Keurig Green Moutain to the S&P 500 after the close of trading on March 21. Keurig's shares have been a hunting ground for short-sellers over the past several years; still now, more than 8% of the outstanding shares have been sold short. However, the stock and the business have gained momentum over the past 24 months, as the company appears to be having genuine success at building its brand -- which is laying the foundation for a competitive moat. At more than 30 times the next 12 months' earnings-per-share estimate, the stock continues to look expensive on traditional measures of value; for my money, it's neither a buy, nor a short.

Newmont Mining was the seventh best-performing stock in the Russell 1000 this week (+6.4%). It appears the shares got a boost from the company's announcement that it had sold its 5.4% stake in Paladin Energy for $24 million in cash. While the sums in question are small, the sale demonstrates Newmont's commitment to its pledge to divest non-core assets. Newmont inherited the Paladin Energy stake from its 2011 acquisition of Fronteer Gold.

Newmont is a gold and copper miner and the price of the two metals has been divergent this year. Nevertheless, shares of Newmont have rebounded sharply off their Feb. 5 low of $20.87 -- which was more than a five-year low. I'm not a fan of leveraged bets on commodities prices -- which is exactly what mining companies are -- but momentum addicts and bottom-fishers may find their interest here.

I mentioned earlier that Keurig Green Mountain was a hunting ground for short-sellers, but that's nothing compared with the epic duel taking place over Herbalife, which pits two of the brashest, highest-profile activist investors against each other. This week, Bill Ackman of Pershing Square Capital Management won a field advantage as Herbalife disclosed thast it is the object of an FTC investigation; as a result, the stock was the fifth worst-performing stock in the Russell 1000 (-10.3% on the week.)

Ackman alleges that the multi-level marketing company is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme and says the stock is worthless; he's made that case to regulators and politicians, and some of them are clearly listening. But don't count out his adversary and Herbalife's largest shareholder, the legendary Carl Icahn. In the wake of the disclosure regarding the FTC investigation, the company announced that it would delay its April annual meeting by five days to consult with Icahn. You can read more of my thoughts on the situation in my article from Thursday, but the bottom line is that individual investors ought to sit this one out and enjoy the show instead.