Cubist Pharmaceuticals and Durata Therapeutics both won this week with nods by the FDA's advisory panels on each company's antibacterial agents.

In two unanimous votes, the FDA panels agreed on the safety and efficacy of Cubist's tedizolid and Durata's dalbavancin. Both drugs would compete with Pfizer's Zyvox (linezolid).

Rivals or partners?
Both Cubist's Sivextro and Durata's Dalvance are targeted against serious bacterial skin infections caused by Gram-positive infections like MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus). Vancomycin (generic) is now the first-line treatment for MRSA, but it's limited by side effects, toxicity, and is availability in IV form only.

While the two drugs target the same infections, from a macroscopic view, Durata can hardly be considered a true rival. With a vast misbalance in market cap, Durata is but a tiny blip compared to behemoth Cubist, which is already a leader in antibiotics with its blockbuster Cubicin.

Formed just five years ago, Durata is a relatively small biotech formed to buy Pfizer's antibiotic-focused subsidiary Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, an acquisition that resulted in dalbavancin changing hands. Pfizer originally paid $1.9 billion for Vicuron (and dalbavancin) in 2005.

Meanwhile, Cubist has been in full force for development and growth. It acquired Trius Therapeutics and Optimer Pharmaceuticals last summer for $1.6 billion, adding Sivextro to its portfolio in addition to Dificid, Optimer's infectious diarrhea treatment. The company plans to spend $400 million just this year in developing four new agents by 2020. Cubist also plans to file for approval this year an antibacterial agent against complicated urinary and abdominal infections.

Head to head, Durata will have a difficult time against Cubist. But the concurrent approval of their two antibiotics may speak to Durata's value as being a possible future acquisition for Cubist, a deal that analysts have speculated about in the past.

And the drugs themselves?
If both drugs are approved, Durata will severely lag in ability to market its drug compared to Cubist just based on infrastructure and funding, but comparing Dalvance to Sivextro yields a much narrower margin.

Sivextro wins on ease of dosing, offering a once daily pill or injection; meanwhile, Dalvance is given once a week for two weeks. As compared to Pfizer's Zyvox, Sivextro proved noninferiority and also enjoys the advantage of less frequent dosing, shorter course of treatment, and improved side effect profile. Dalvance also proved noninferiority to both vancomycin and vancomycin followed by linezolid, the main compound of Zyvox.

Dalvance specifically generated some concern regarding liver problems and dosing follow-up, but the advisory committees both requested that further safety studies be conducted after the drugs go to market. With both drugs meeting primary endpoints and raising only mild safety concerns, they're pretty comparable, although Dalvance may lag slightly due to the more complicated dosing schedule. Of course, this assumes that the FDA follows these committee recommendations, which is not guaranteed.

The final FDA decision is expected by June 20 for Sivextro and by May 26 for Dalvance.

Bottom line
Pfizer's Zyvox raked in $1.4 billion last year, and Sivextro and Dalvance are estimated to yield $219 million and $449 million by 2019, respectively. But Zyvox's loss of patent protection in 2015 will breed an array of cheap generic competitors, which will in turn also compete with the then newly approved Sivextro and Dalvance.

Cubist is, to my mind, unequivocally the larger, more stable, and safer company. Coupled with its proven success with antibiotics, its aggressive strategy of growth, and its stronger infrastructure for commercialization, Cubist will ultimately reign supreme on this particular fight.

No one expected otherwise, however. What is more notable here is that adding Dalvance to Durata's portfolio -- assuming approval -- would make it a much more attractive purchase, maybe even for Cubist. For the long term, I view Cubist as an excellent potential investment; however, in the short term, Durata is worth watching as it may be courted for purchase if Dalvance is approved.

The American College of Cardiology meeting is always good for market-moving news, and this year was no different. A range of companies trotted out their latest innovations and put their best spins on their latest trial data at the event last weekend. 

However, it was Medtronic , the industry medical device giant, that put up the most noteworthy news this year when it unleashed data showing that patients receiving its CoreValve transcatheter through a minimally invasive procedure did better than patients who had open heart surgery. That marked the first time that the procedure outpaced surgery, and clears the way for Medtronic to challenge rival Edwards Lifesciences , the only company that's currently offering a competing valve in high risk patients.

MDT data by YCharts

Is one a better buy?
The battle for market share won't begin quite yet. Medtronic's CoreValve is only approved for use in the highest risk patients -- it got that approval in January -- and not high risk patients. That said, Medtronic's data suggests that CoreValve may also get an FDA nod for use in the healthier patient group. Medtronic currently expects that decision to come in the middle of fiscal 2015, which means sometime this fall.

Medtronics transcatheter sales (CoreValve is approved for use in Europe) have grown a compounded 60% in each of the past two years. However, that growth has had a muted impact on Medtronic given Medtronic's nearly $17 billion in global sales.

Edwards' competing Sapien transcatheter heart valve has also been a strong performer, and has had a bigger impact on its top line given Edwards' smaller size. Sapien sales underpinned 22% growth in transcatheter heart valve sales at Edwards last quarter, and helped lift Edward's overall sales by 11% last year. 

Since Edwards sales have been growing more quickly than Medtronic's, investors have been more willing to pay a premium for its sales relative to Medtronic's. 

Dividing the current price by each company's trailing 12 month sales shows that Medtronic is a bit less expensive at 3.7 times revenue. However, that ratio is the highest in five years, suggesting investors are increasingly warming up to Medtronic's potential. Meanwhile, Edwards' 4.15 times sales ratio is not only higher than Medtronic's, but is also well off its 2011 and 2012 peak, suggesting investors are less inclined to pay up for shares in the company.

MDT PS Ratio (TTM) data by YCharts

Debating earnings
Another way to compare the two is to consider how pricey each is compared to its earnings. First, let's see which of the two does a better job converting sales into profit. Medtronic's operating margin is 28.6%, while Edwards' is 22.2%.

Medtronic's friendlier margin suggests that an increase in transcatheter procedures could have a bigger impact on it than on Edwards. You might think that Medtronic's operating margin advantage would translate into investors being more willing to pay up for Medtronic's earnings than Edwards' earnings, but thus far you'd be wrong.

When considering their future price to earnings ratios, Medtronic's shares are trading at 15 times earnings, while Edwards' shares are trading at more than 21 times earnings. That already suggests Medtronic is cheaper than Edwards, but given that Medtronic's earnings estimates have remained stable for next year over the past three months, while Edwards' estimates have sank, suggests there may be a disconnect between the two that investors can use to their advantage.

Fool-worthy final thoughts
The real winner in this battle is patients. 83% of those treated with the self-expanding CoreValve were stroke free after four years. However, investors interested in picking up shares to capitalize on the likely increase in transcatheter procedures should probably lean toward Medtronic.

After all, Medtronic is less expensive to sales, less expensive to earnings, and appears to have an edge in outcomes based on the recently reported data. In case those reasons aren't compelling enough, investors shouldn't forget that while Edwards doesn't pay a dividend, Medtronic does.

Medtronic's 1.8% yield may not be a barn burner, but its 25% cash dividend payout ratio, which reflects operating cash minus capital expenditures and preferred dividend payments, suggests there's plenty of room for Medtronic to grow it. 

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo own some of the most durable beverage brands in the world. Both Coke and Pepsi are household names around the globe and few soda drinkers do not have a preference between the two. However, Americans are growing wary of diet soft drinks, which are linked to a slew of health problems including cancer and heart disease. Public awareness of the health risks associated with diet soft drinks has sent volumes plunging. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are left with only a few options to combat the problem.

Diet volumes plunging
For the most part, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have been able to offset soft drink volume declines by raising prices even higher, allowing the two companies to grow soft-drink revenue even as U.S. case volume declines. But plunging diet soft drink consumption is dragging down volumes more than can be offset through price increases.

According to Nielsen, diet soft drink sales declined 7.3% from mid-February to mid-march, while regular soda volume increased 0.6%. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo's diet drinks fared slightly better than the overall category: the former's soft drink volume declined 5.8% while the latter's fell 6.9% over the month-long period. At the same time, Coca-Cola's regular soft-drink volume improved 2.3% and PepsiCo's increased 1.7%.

The diet category has so many problems that even Coca-Cola's newly launched Diet Coke Frost -- the much-heralded frozen soft drink served in 7-Eleven stores -- had to be pulled from shelves due to viscosity issues. According to Advertising Age, it was the one diet drink product that consumers had actually embraced. Nothing is going right for diet soft drinks.

What is going wrong?
Americans are growing concerned about the health risks associated with diet soft drinks. In a continuation of the steady drumbeat against diet soda, CNBC reports that a recent study found that women who consume a large amount of diet soda are more likely to develop heart disease and die. The results of the study come with an important caveat: diet drinks may not actually cause the increased risk of heart disease; they might just be a tool used by some women to make up for other unhealthy habits.

Despite its innocuous conclusions, the study provides yet another reason for consumers to stop drinking diet soda. Already, there is evidence linking the artificial sweeteners used in diet soda to diabetes, kidney problems, and preterm delivery. As more research is conducted on diet-soda consumption, the findings may become even worse, setting up the diet category for further declines.

What Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are doing to solve diet problem
With mid-single-digit declines in volume, price increases are not enough to keep diet-soda revenue from falling further. According to Nielsen, price cuts will not solve the problem either. Coca-Cola's sparkling beverage prices declined by 4.5% from mid-February through mid-March, but volume increased only 3.8%. As a result, overall sparkling revenue declined.

The only way to save the category is to change consumers' perceptions of diet soft drinks. That is unlikely to happen through more in-depth studies of the current drinks -- it seems that science only comes out against diet soda. The only solution is to develop an artificial sweetener that does not have the baggage of aspartame and actually tastes good (unlike Stevia, which many consumers report having a bad aftertaste).

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are hard at work developing the next generation of artificial sweeteners. PepsiCo is working with food additive company Senomyx to develop a new sweetener, codenamed Sweetmyx S617, that would replace the majority of sugar (and, thus, calories) in soft drinks. Sweetmyx S617 was recently deemed Generally Recognized As Safe, or GRAS, by the industry's self-regulating expert panel. This gives it the go-ahead to be used in commercial products, an important step for PepsiCo in its quest to salvage diet drink volume.

If PepsiCo's new sweetener tastes as good as the regular drink, it could do wonders for Diet Pepsi's market share. Currently at 4.7%, Diet Pepsi's market share is seventh among carbonated soft-drink brands, while Diet Coke's 9.4% share puts it in second, placed behind Coke.

Although Coca-Cola is hard at work at developing its own sweetener, it is also rolling out a new Stevia-packed drink with success. Coca-Cola Life, a 64-calorie drink that is sweetened with Stevia but also contains sugar to offset Stevia's bitter aftertaste, has met with success in Argentina and Chile. The company plans to introduce the drink to other markets in 2014. Given the industry's inability to find a blockbuster new sweetener thus far, mid-calorie options with a mix of Stevia and sucrose could be the future for diet drinks.

Takeaway
Diet soda -- and soda in general -- will never be popular with the healthy, all-natural crowd. But people who are struggling to adhere to a healthy diet may view the diet category as an easy way to enjoy a beverage without drinking excessive calories. As a result, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo need only come out with good-tasting low-calorie beverages that do not contain suspect sweeteners. PepsiCo's Sweetmyx 617 or Coca-Cola Life could be the answer -- investors will have to wait and see.

Source: SXC.hu

Pizza is going flat. After years of strong growth, pizza sales are expected to widen just 2.3% in 2013, down from the more robust 3.7% expansion it enjoyed the year before. The market researchers at NPD Group anticipate we'll see growth of less than 2% this year. Pizza, it seems, has peaked.

The timing could be problematic for Yum! Brands' Pizza Hut chain, which is facing an onslaught of competitors trying to remake the segment in the image of fast-casual giant Chipotle Mexican Grill . By infusing the concept with a greater choice of toppings, adding in gourmet, fresh ingredients, and catering to the made-to-order fad that's swept over burgers, Chinese food, and sub shops, pizzerias are trying to go upscale to create a new taste sensation.

I'm not sure they're not too late to the (pizza) party. Yum!, which already dominates the fast-casual pizza niche, reported that same-store sales at its U.S. Pizza Hut division fell 2% for the year, and were down 4% in the fourth quarter. Just last month, mall-based pizza joint Sbarro filed for bankruptcy, even though it had big plans to develop a mid-level concept called Sbarro Brooklyn Fresh.

Pizza meets the consumer's need for quick, cheap food. Technomic found that 75% of consumers eat pizza at least twice a month, and report they have on average 3.4 "pizza occasions" per month. That comports well with an Agriculture Department study issued in February that says on any given day, 13% of the U.S. population is consuming pizza somewhere.

Why that data is important, though, is that it shows it's primarily a food niche catering to young males, ages 6 to 19, a demographic important for the corner pizzeria, less so for these swank Chipotle wannabes. Indeed, Chipotle itself has had enough of pizza shops wanting to be the "next Chipotle"; it's partnered with Pizzeria Locale to create its own fast-casual chain.

Fast casual is undoubtedly hot at the moment, one of the few dining segments showing consistent growth even though it comprises just 14% of the total $223 billion limited-service restaurant segment. Whereas Technomic says all limited-service restaurant growth will expand at a compounded annual rate of 4.5% through 2017, they expect fast-casual restaurants to grow at more than double that pace, or 10% on average during the same time frame. NPD also says that fast-casual chains are the leaders in adding new restaurants.

My preferred pizza investments are those that mix the best qualities of the corner pizza-by-the-slice joint with the desires of consumers. As part of its continuing makeover, Domino's Pizza , for example, has added the fresh ingredients consumers are looking for while maintaining the delivery and discounting components that brought them success in the first place. Global sales were up 5% last year, with domestic company-owned and franchised stores enjoying a 3.4% increase in sales, outpacing the larger industry numbers. Similarly, Papa John's  witnessed a 4.5% increase in domestic sales year over year, with total revenues up more than 5%, as well.

Pizza may have hit a plateau, but that doesn't mean investors still can't grab a slice. I'd avoid those that seek to simply cash in on the latest craze and stick with those that have proven they can build on what's already established rather than trying to hang curtains on some new, fancy concept.

The two largest hemodialysis service providers, Fresenius Medical Care and DaVita HealthCare Partners , may have a lot in common, but the performance of their shares is not one of them. Over the past year, DaVita has a 10% lead on on Fresenius and that lead only increases at the two-year (roughly 60%), and five-year (nearly 120%) marks.

Though the operating margins have been similar, DaVita has significantly outgrown Fresenius over the past decade and generated more free cash flow as a percentage of revenue. Better still, DaVita's HealthCare Partners business looks like a "right place, right time, right idea" operation that can benefit from a growing focus on basing health care spending on outcomes, not procedures. Considering DaVita's growth potential, the shares may yet be as much as 20% undervalued today.

Number two in a vital, but tough, service business
DaVita is the second-largest provider of dialysis services in the U.S., with about one-third share of the market (some 5% behind Fresenius). DaVita provides its services at nearly 2,100 freestanding clinics, as well as providing acute services at about 1,000 hospitals. Unlike Fresenius, DaVita has focused the lion's share of its attention on the U.S. market.

That focus on the U.S. market is definitely a mixed blessing in some respects. While the number of people with end-stage renal disease is increasing, and these patients need dialysis to live, the peculiar structure of the U.S. market creates reimbursement challenges. U.S. law mandates that Medicare pay for dialysis treatments, but with those patients who have commercial health insurance being covered by those insurers for the first 30 months of treatment.

All manner of health care service providers have felt the sting of cuts in Medicare reimbursement and/or slow growth in payment amounts. As a result, private insurers reimburse for dialysis treatments at a rate three to four times higher than Medicare. The end result is that only around 10% of DaVita's dialysis patients are reimbursed through private insurance, but they account for about one-third of the segment's revenue.

It does not appear that the reimbursement environment is going to get any better. Basic dialysis reimbursement rates are unlikely to go up much (if at all) over the next few years and it seems plausible that there could be attempts to clawback some of the lower costs of drugs administered as part of the dialysis procedure. In such an environment, it will be critical for DaVita to carefully manage costs, including closing loss-making centers and possibly expanding the use of home dialysis.

HealthCare Partners may be the future
DaVita acquired HealthCare Partners in 2012, in part to diversify the business beyond dialysis. HealthCare Partners is a physician group manager that essentially coordinates care for the patients covered by commercial health plans or government-funded plans like Medicare. DaVita is paid a per-member fee (capitation) and the company coordinates and manages the care of those patients.

This is an appealing alternative for payers, as it allows them to control their costs and spread risk across the system. As costs become more and more of a focus in health care, HealthCare Partners may well be an example of an increasingly common model - a model that prioritizes paying for outcomes rather than procedures. The hope is that in paying for outcomes, there are fewer incentives to prescribe unnecessary procedures and tests (and/or procedures that don't really lead to improved outcomes), a greater focus on cost-benefit analysis, and an ability to focus on a "continuum of care" that prevents problems before they even arise.

Medicare Advantage is a key opportunity for the company. The whole idea of Medicare Advantage is to deliver better and more cost-effective outcomes by allowing patients to choose plans administered by private providers. Managed care companies like Humana and WellCare (particularly Humana) have made large commitments to the Medicare Advantage market, but a key to profiting from this business is in controlling costs.

HealthCare Partners is one of the largest physician group managers out there right now, and with its solid record of cost containment and outcomes improvement, it could be a key partner as Medicare Advantage expands. Humana, for instance, has talked of a target of 50% of its MA patients served by organizations like HealthCare Partners by 2017, and this could position DaVita as a key player in how payers manage health care costs in the future.

The bottom line
I expect DaVita to grow revenue at a long-term rate of around 6% as the company benefits from a growing number of dialysis patients and the expansion of the HealthCare Partners business. I am not expecting particularly large improvements in free cash flow generation, as I believe the reimbursement and cost environment will prove challenging. Even so, 5% FCF growth is more than enough to support a fair value target in the mid-$70's today.

Given DaVita's significant outperformance relative to Fresenius, I wouldn't be surprised if sell-side analysts start making calls to switch from DaVita to Fresenius on the basis that Fresenius shares somehow need to "catch up." I disagree, as I believe DaVita offers better FCF generation and its position in outcomes-based medicine gives it better growth prospects.

When it comes to investing, it'd be nice to find the next Amazon.com before it became...well...Amazon.com.  Don't you think?

In Dangdang , many beginning investors believe that they are, in fact, buying shares of China's iteration of Amazon for a fraction of the price of its American counterpart.  As Motley Fool contributor Brian Stoffel shows in the video below, that view oversimplifies the Chinese e-commerce landscape and gives investors a skewed view of Dangdang's actual standing in the market.

That being said, Brian is actually a shareholder in Dangdang, but he's wondering whether the shares are actually worth continuing to hold.  Watch the video below to see what why investors need to be cautious with this stock, and what he plans on doing with his shares.

By now, you've heard that Amazon.com  has officially launched its own set-top box that lets users stream digital video and audio content to their televisions. Priced at $99 a pop, the Amazon Fire TV costs the same as Apple's rival streaming gadget. Yet it is more expensive than other competing devices including Google's  $35 Chromecast and Roku's $50 dongle.

This product launch is exciting for Amazon. However, the e-commerce giant's new hardware is only half of the equation. For investors, the real story is how Amazon's media ecosystem and user base measure up to that of deep-pocketed rivals like Apple and Google.

A crowded market
Amazon has built a vast library of digital media and apps that now includes thousands of movies and TV shows, millions of songs, and over a hundred games. Until now, Amazon's Kindle tablets were the main point-of-sale devices that people used to consume this content. Today, if you purchase a Kindle or Fire TV, for example, you're buying into the complete Amazon ecosystem of digital media. The same goes for Apple's devices and its iTunes media library, as well as Google's Chromecast dongle and Google Play.

Video streaming is now the fastest-growing component of these competing ecosystems. Moreover, it is quickly replacing DVDs as more people choose to stream movies and TV episodes from tablet and smartphone devices. Apple TV currently dominates the U.S. streaming device market with 43% market share, while Google Chromecast grabbed 14% of the market after its debut less than a year ago, according to research from BI Intelligence. It will be interesting to see where Amazon's new Fire TV falls into the mix, once it's been on the market for a bit.

For now, Apple TV has a greater breadth of first-party content than its rivals. Apple TV is also available in more markets around the world than Google Play or Amazon Instant Video. In fact, Apple's media business is estimated to be an $8.5 billion empire, or bigger than The New York Times, Time Inc., and Warner Bros. combined, according to VisionMobile. However, Amazon is hoping to differentiate its ecosystem from competitors' by making a big bet on original content.

One-of-a-kind content is king
Offering exclusive TV and movie titles and introducing original content is one way Amazon could beat Apple at its own game. After all, with so much competition in the space, having a vast assortment of media in one's ecosystem is no longer enough. Apple TV, Chromecast, and Fire TV all offer content from various third-party providers like Netflix , Hulu Plus, Crackle, and YouTube. However, unlike Amazon, Apple and Google aren't producing original content.

Amazon is taking a page out of Netflix's playbook by investing in original content and buying exclusive rights to popular network shows like the Fox hit series 24. Netflix added 2.3 million U.S. subscribers in the fourth quarter thanks to the wild popularity of its original content lineup, which includes shows like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black.

Of course, original series like these cost far more to produce than simply licensing content from third-party providers. For example, 26 episodes of its House of Cards series cost Netflix $100 million to produce. Similar to Netflix, Amazon is also heavily investing in original content these days in hopes of attracting new subscribers to its Prime membership program -- analysts estimate that Amazon Prime now has more than 25 million paying subscribers.

For just $99 a year, Prime members get unlimited streaming access to more than 40,000 movies and TV shows including Amazon original series like Alpha House. Amazon Studios plans to introduce 10 more original shows this year, including Transparent and The After, which will be available exclusively on Amazon Prime Instant Video. While expensive, original content could give Amazon's media ecosystem an edge over Apple's and Google's respective networks.

Video streaming services are just one part of the growing media ecosystems for Amazon, Apple, and Google -- albeit an important part. Ultimately, each of these companies' ecosystems has strengths and weaknesses. However, I suspect original content and exclusive digital media rights will be what set these tech giants' networks apart in the future.

Amazon.com, is disrupting the gaming console business with the new Fire set-top box, Fool contributor Tim Beyers says in the following video.

Unlike Apple's own Apple TV, or Google's Chromecast, the new $99 Fire allows users to play games via an Amazon-supplied controller that retails for $39.99. More than 100 games are available right now. The message? You needn't own an Xbox One or the new PlayStation 4 if you want quality gaming.

Credit: Amazon.com.

Tim says we should have seen this coming. Recent advancements in mobile gaming technology are making it possible to bring console-quality games to mobile devices. Among them, NVIDIA's Tegra K1, which includes the same graphics processing horsepower found in its PC chips. Separately, video game streaming specialist Twitch recently unveiled plans for streaming mobile gameplay. The thinking? Mobile games aren't nearly as lightweight as they used to be.

Games such as Minecraft-Pocket Edition from Mojang and Sev Zero, an exclusive from Amazon Game Studios, both of which come with the Fire. Hard-core gamers won't be impressed. But everyday users who already want to stream TV and movies? Tim says they're likely to give Amazon's Fire a look.

Over the longer term, we're likely to see all set tops improve to support beefy titles in the style of Titanfall or Grand Theft Auto V. When they do, Tim says we'll remember that it was Amazon -- not Apple or Google -- but Amazon that started the Fire.

Now it's your turn to weigh in. Do you think adding gaming will help the Fire stand out against Apple TV, Chromecast, and Roku's new Streaming Stick? Are you more or less bullish on Amazon stock as a result? Please leave a comment below to let us know what you think.

In dumping T-Mobile USA as a carrier, BlackBerry Ltd. has left the ranks of major smartphone suppliers. Apple, Google, and Microsoft all sell smartphones through each of the four major U.S. telecom carriers. Fool contributor Tim Beyers explains the implications for BlackBerry in the following video.

There isn't much for either company to mourn. BlackBerry now accounts for near zero U.S. market share according to the latest figures from Consumer Intelligence Research Partners. T-Mobile, meanwhile, is the nation's fourth-largest carrier. Parting ways may be more of a PR problem than a profit problem.

What caused the rift? Promotions strategy. In September, T-Mobile stopped carrying BlackBerry handsets in its stores. Months later, the carrier began running ads prompting users to switch to the iPhone. BlackBerry responded by terminating the relationship.

Investors' reactions to the news have been mixed. Shares of BlackBerry fell more than 10% between March 28 and April 3, a period that included mediocre earnings news. T-Mobile stock rose modestly during the same period.

Tim says the BlackBerry sell-off is probably an overreaction given the company's newfound emphasis on software and services, which should naturally reduce its dependence on carrier whimsy. Continued approval of BlackBerry handsets by U.S. Defense Department employees should also provide a buffer.

Even so, Tim says this is a stock story in transition from that of a major international smartphone supplier to that of a niche supplier of mobile software and services. Do you agree? Please leave a comment below to let us know what you think, and whether you would buy, sell, or short BlackBerry stock at current prices

Like most people who don't own a home, I pay rent every month. This past Tuesday after I debited my monthly payment directly from my bank account, I got to thinking: How many rewards points could someone rack up if they paid rent with a credit card?

Source: Flickr/Cincy Project.

The crux of this decision depends largely on your rent, your credit card, and the fee that your property manager will charge you for using it. Fees for these credit card transactions are unavoidable, because they cover the amount credit card companies charge your management company for processing. Let's work through the numbers.

Many miles, for a price 
I have a card from Capital One that gives me 1.25 miles for every dollar I spend, and my property manager will charge me $40 to pay my rent with my card. My monthly rent is $1,392; add to that the $40 fee, and I'd really be paying $1,432 per month, yielding 1,790 miles. After one year of paying my rent this way, I would earn 21,480 miles and pay $480 in fees. That mileage has a dollar value of $107, based on Capital One's policy that 5,000 miles equals $25.

Now, each month I am already committed to paying $1,392 one way or the other. I have the cash on hand, so the real question here is whether all those miles are worth $40 each month. What sort of return could I expect if I put that money elsewhere?

To determine its value, let's consider some alternative options for that money. Again, $40 a month is $480 each year. Here's how its value breaks down when placed in a sock drawer, my savings account (with my actual interest rate), or the stock market:

Source: Author's calculations. Stock market return is based on historical data.

Realistically, the sock drawer and the savings account options would actually lose value if you factored in inflation, especially if you used them for a longer period of time -- say, 10 years. Similarly, using the stock market's historical average for a two-year period is not ideal, but these numbers do give us the answer to our question.

Forty bucks per month for two years would result in $6.93 in interest in my savings account, perhaps $32.64 in an index fund, and $214 in credit card points. The problem with the credit card points is that unlike the sock drawer or a savings account (and hopefully the stock market), you lose your entire principal. In other words, you are paying much more than you get in return, which makes no sense. You are better off paying your rent in cash and keeping that $480 in a drawer than you would be using it to earn credit card points.

If your apartment management company charges you a fee -- which it almost certainly does -- then paying your rent with a credit card is a giant rip-off.

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" will likely set a new April debut record. Credit: Disney/Marvel

If its stellar Friday performance is any indication, a new April box office debut record should be in the bag for Disney Marvel's Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Including $10.2 million from late-Thursday previews, the $170 million sequel collected a massive $37 million from domestic audiences in its first day.

This is the earliest calendar release Disney has employed for a Marvel film to date; last year's The Avengers, 2011's Thor, and all three Iron Man films each arrived in early May. However, assuming Winter Soldier achieves the same average 2.55 Friday-weekend multiple as each of its May predecessors, that puts it on on pace for a first-weekend gross of approximately $94 million.

For reference, the previous April high mark of $86.2 million was set in 2011 by Universal Studios' Fast Five, which at the time absolutely shattered Fast and Furious' two-year-old record of $71 million. Zooming out a bit, this also means Captain America: The Winter Soldier should secure its spot as the third-largest Spring launch of all time, trailing only two March debuts -- $152.6 million from Lions Gate's The Hunger Games in 2012, and $116.1 million from Disney's Alice in Wonderland in 2010.

Finally, and though we're still waiting for revised worldwide figures to roll in, international movie-goers have added at least another $100 million to Winter Soldier's cume. Given its excellent "A" CinemaScore from polled audiences and assuming Cap can maintain momentum typical of his fellow Marvelites, I wouldn't be surprised to see Winter Soldier exceed the $700 million mark by the time it exits theaters a few months from now.

And in this corner...

We shouldn't forget Winter Soldier isn't alone. So how's everyone else faring?

Viacom Paramount's Noah plunged a harrowing 67.6% from last Friday to tack on another $4.9 million. That puts Noah on pace to add around $14 million to its U.S. total this weekend, bringing its domestic cume to right around $70 million. Then again, Noah's plunge shouldn't be all that surprising considering audiences have mostly panned the quasi-biblical epic, leaving little hope for Viacom to benefit from positive word of mouth. 

Keep in mind Noah already rolled out overseas last week, where it has tacked on approximately $51.1 million to bring its worldwide gross to $111.4 million. If Noah can't find its sea legs in the U.S. going forward, it'll need to lean hard on international territories to recoup Viacom's lofty $125 million production budget.

Meanwhile, Lions Gate's Divergent fell a reasonable 48% week-over-week to add $4.2 million in its third Friday, which means it should arrive somewhere in the $13 million to $14 million range. With Divergent set to expand in earnest overseas this weekend and Lions Gate already planning at least two sequels, investors should be pleased the $85 million film has already racked up a global gross of $112.8 million.

If one thing is sure it's this weekend belongs to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Next weekend could prove interesting with a trio of promising newcomers arriving in Draft Day, Oculus, and Rio 2. Be sure to check back before then for our take on how each movie will fare.

In a highly publicized interview on CNBC, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett dismissed bitcoin as an investment, even going so far as to call it a "mirage". In response, tech heavyweight Marc Andreessen says bitcoin is yet another technology Buffett simply doesn't understand. While the notion Buffett doesn't exactly embrace new technologies may indeed be true, he is right about bitcoin and technological advances in general, at least from an investment perspective. Here is one of the most valuable lessons from Buffett's investing style and how you can apply it to your portfolio.

Source: Mark Hirschey

Buffett's comments and why he made them
Buffett said bitcoin is essentially an updated version of writing a check or sending someone a money order. In other words, it's simply a new, more efficient way of transmitting money. He's not discounting the usefulness of bitcoin to make payments and transfer money, just the intrinsic value it supposedly has as an investment.

Andreessen immediately took to Twitter and said how Buffett is always dismissing technologies he doesn't understand. This is absolutely true, and he did the same thing during the dot-com bubble. However, he has been right about new technologies as investments.

Buffett's best advice
In an article published at the height of the dot-com bubble, Warren Buffett offered his simple definition of what investing is: "Investing is laying out money now to get more money back in the future -- more money in real terms, after taking inflation into account." He also pointed out how transforming an industry (like bitcoin may do) doesn't necessarily produce a sound investment opportunity. He referenced how the airline and auto industries revolutionized transportation, yet neither has ever been a very sound investment. There have been over 2,000 car manufacturers in U.S. history... how many are still around today?

One of the best lessons you can learn from Buffett is how the most important thing to do when investing is to assess the competitive advantage of a company and the durability of the advantage. Does bitcoin have a competitive advantage in the virtual currency business? Absolutely. Will that advantage last for decades? Maybe, but maybe not.

So where should the majority of your savings be invested?
There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question, but a good way to get started is to look at a list of Berkshire Hathaway's current holdings.

The first thing you should notice is the absence of tech companies, with the exception of IBM which is more of a business-service company these days.  Most of Berkshire's holdings are in industries like insurance, banking, food and beverage, clothing, materials, and media. These businesses have all been around for centuries (in one form or another) and will be needed for the next 100 years and beyond. People will always need to eat, wear clothes, build homes, get the news, and keep their money safe.

However, in this respect, bitcoin could still qualify. They do represent a way for people to transfer money safely, which will always be needed. However, the other thing you'll notice is that for every Berkshire holding, it is easy to make the case for a durable competitive advantage. For instance, Wells Fargo has the advantage of one of the highest-quality asset portfolios in the banking sector. Coca Cola offers a diverse portfolio of products and has the advantage of "economies of scale", or the cost advantage of mass production. Why is bitcoin more competitive than say, mobile payment software? Most people seem to get along just fine in their lives without bitcoin.

Now take a look at your own portfolio. For each company, decide whether their business will be needed in 100 years. If you can't say yes with absolute certainty, it wouldn't be good enough for Berkshire. Next ask yourself what each company's particular competitive advantage is. Any company you are holding as a long-term investment should have a clear answer to this question.

Don't confuse investing with speculating
I'm not trying to steer you away from trying to get in on the "next big thing". However, this is speculating, not investing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with allocating a small percentage of your portfolio (say 5%) into speculative investments like bitcoin, smartphone companies, OLED display manufacturers, and so on. Putting your money into these companies could absolutely make you tons of money. But they could also go bankrupt in a few years -- there is no way to know for sure.

As long as you understand what an investment is, and allocate the majority of your portfolio accordingly, you should be just fine over the long run. You can have a little fun and experiment with potential "home runs", but a bunch of base hits over several decades will serve you much better than one or two grand slams.

Apple and Google  are vying your go-to for Internet-delivered entertainment. Which one has the better chance of winning?

Then, Kevin Tsujihara talks about a better future for Time Warner and Warner Bros. in an interview with The New York Times. Is the DC vs. Marvel battle about to take a turn in Warner's favor?

Finally, Captain America: The Winter Soldier appears on track for an $90 million or better U.S. opening for Marvel Studios, while Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. suffers a ratings misfire. Is this still a net win for Walt Disney investors?

Ellen Bowman, Nathan Alderman, and Tim Beyers have these stories and more in this week's episode of 1-Up on Wall Street!

Apparel retailer Urban Outfitters has run into difficult times of late. The company's latest results failed to meet consensus estimates as severe winter weather, which hurt many other retailers as well, weighed on Urban's results. The namesake Urban Outfitters brand struggled, but the silver lining came from the strong performance of the Free People brand.

In addition, Urban Outfitters has been performing better than its apparel rivals Abercrombie & Fitch and Aeropostale . Urban's strategies for the long run also look impressive and should help the company perform better as compared to competitors. Let's see why.

A cautious outlook
After facing a tough challenge in the fourth quarter because of severe weather conditions in the Midwest and Eastern United States, Urban Outfitters is looking at a turnaround. However, the namesake Urban Outfitters brand's underperformance was a major concern for the retailer in the fourth quarter as comp sales dropped 6%.

But, after a thorough market research, Urban will be restructuring this brand. It will reorganize the working of the brand and bring all creative functions to a more central role. In addition, the company will also focus on its core 18 to 28 year old age group and roll out merchandise accordingly.

It will take some time for these changes to reap results, and until then, there will be no relief for the Urban brand. According to management, "Current quarter sales at the Urban brand will remain well below those achieved in the first quarter last year, and margins will likely be under considerable pressure." It is difficult to predict the exact turnaround time. But the changes the company is going to make in the brand should help it deliver long-term gains.

Positives to note
On the bright side, Urban Outfitters' Free People brand turned in an outstanding performance in the quarter. The company is expanding its intimate apparel offerings to sustain its growth momentum as this category grew two times faster than the apparel category. Free People's shoe category was another big success, with retail sales increasing 54% from the year-ago period. The company received an enthusiastic response for its newly launched wholesale shoe line at Las Vegas, which will be in stores by August.

In addition, the Anthropologie brand has also been doing well. In spite of a highly promotional holiday season, Anthropologie's traffic remained strong without too much spending on promotions. Anthropologie delivered its best fourth-quarter operating margins last time, and the company intends to keep this strong performance intact.

Anthropologie's petite assortment is currently offered in seven stores and online, and it saw 303% sales growth in the previous quarter. Urban Outfitters plans to expand this assortment to a dozen additional Anthropologie stores by 2015. It has also integrated the BHLDN bridal concept into the Anthropologie brand, which reported increased sales of around 50%. 

Urban Outfitters' direct-to-consumer channel is also getting more efficient with each passing quarter. This is good news for investors since apparel sales are expected to be the leading driver of e-commerce growth going forward, according to eMarketer. Urban has been able to lower order fulfillment times by over 30% and shipping times by over 15%, so it's making the correct moves to tap more online customers.

Still a better pick
Urban Outfitters reported 6% growth in revenue in the previous quarter and same-store sales growth of 1%. These numbers don't look outstanding, but when compared to peers, Urban is way better. For instance, Aeropostale's same-store sales were down 15% in the previous quarter. In fact, for the full year, Aeropostale's sales were down 15%, much worse than the 2% drop in 2012. 

The problem with Aeropostale is that is isn't able to offer the right merchandise to its target audience, according to Fool contributor Chad Henage. Its online sales are also struggling, as seen by a 4.8% drop in the previous quarter.

Abercrombie's performance hasn't been noteworthy either. In the last quarter, Abercrombie's revenue in the U.S. dropped 13%, while same-store sales were down a massive 15%. Even Abercrombie hasn't been able to get its merchandise mix right, as Henage pointed out. Moreover, since Abercrombie positions itself as a high-end retailer, the company might not be able to get out of the soup anytime soon, as budget-conscious customers are likely to stay away because of high pricing. 

Bottom line
Despite challenges, Urban has been able to post positive growth numbers. The company might face short-term headwinds as it looks to bring its namesake brand back on track, but growth at Free People, Anthropologie, and in online sales make it a good long-term prospect.

Photo credit: Alcoa Inc 

In 2008 the Bush Administration created a $25 billion loan program that was designed to spur innovation within the auto industry. Around that time oil prices surged to more than $140 per barrel, making it clear that America needed to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, or ATVM, was created to give automakers the funding to create more fuel efficient vehicles. 

There was just one problem: The program found just four takers. Worse yet, one of the companies that received a loan went bankrupt. That said, the much-maligned program is set to improve with a new twist that will see it focus on suppliers. That twist could actually benefit a company like Alcoa .

Failed program or too early to tell?
The original ATVM program gave out two loans to major automakers with Nissan receiving $1.4 billion and Ford getting $5.9 billion. Meanwhile, smaller automakers Tesla and Fisker received $465 million and $528.7 million, respectively. While Telsa paid off its loan early Fisker went bankrupt.

Results like that caused some to call the program a failure. The companies that the program was intended to provide a boost for didn't received the full advantage of that boost. Not only that, but for the past few years the Department of Energy has been sitting on about $16 billion that should have been used to fuel the advancement of cleaner vehicle technology.

This is one reason why we're seeing Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz take the program in a new direction. The program could soon be opened up to suppliers that make advanced engines and powertrains, light-weight materials, advanced electronics, and fuel-efficient tires. Despite the fact that the loan problem has been met with mixed reviews that doesn't mean it can't still work when taken in a new direction.

How this might help Alcoa
While Alcoa doesn't make the advanced engines, powertrains or electronics that we'll need for our next-generation of cars, it does make light-weight aluminum. We've already seen Ford, for example, use Alcoa's aluminum to help it drop 700 pounds from the frame of its 2015 F-150. However, in one sense Ford is one step behind in using this key material as aluminum was vitally important in keeping Tesla's Model S weight low enough so that it could add the batteries needed to extend the range of its groundbreaking electric vehicle. Overall, the drive to use more aluminum in our cars and trucks will see new aluminum-based parts added to future cars as the following slide shows.

Source: Alcoa Investor Presentation (link opens a PDF)

Alcoa is at the leading edge of making the light-weight aluminum-based components necessary to reduce the weight of vehicles. For example, its newest commercial truck wheel, the Ultra ONE, is 47% of the weight of a similarly sized steel wheel. That enables a commercial truck to shed 1,400 pounds. It's innovations like this wheel that will help drive an improvement in fuel efficiency in America.

There is no doubt that aluminum is becoming an increasingly more important material for vehicles. However, Alcoa and its peers have a lot more work to do to get even greater quantities of aluminum into future vehicles. Because of this there is a possibility that Alcoa, or one of its competitors, could take advantage of this new wrinkle in the government loan program to jump-start the development of even more light-weight aluminum-based vehicle components.

Investor takeaway
Investors should keep an eye on this change in the Department of Energy loan program. While it didn't help Fisker, it did provide a boost to both Ford and Tesla. There's the potential for it to be used provide a boost to a company like Alcoa or one of its competitors to develop advanced aluminum alloys that would make our vehicles even lighter.

Aspirational brand Coach has been terrible. The appearance of rival affordable luxury bag makers Michael Kors and Kate Spade gave consumers (and investors) an outlet for modifying their upwardly mobile tastes away from a brand they became all too accustomed to. While business has been horrible, there may be reason to believe it's only going to get worse.

After nearly reaching $80 a share two years ago, shares of Coach have since consistently traded in a range 25% to 35% below that level. And with good reason. The handbag maker's North American business crumbled, culminating in a disastrous near-14% plunge in same store sales. That's an important retail metric because it gives investors a sense of organic growth in the business and not increases made as a result of new store openings or acquisitions.

Source: Coach SEC filings

In comparison, Kors and Spade have been growing exponentially, with Kors in particular witnessing double-digit revenue and comp growth, and triple-digit margin expansion. Kate Spade, which sold off its Lucky Jeans business to focus on the handbag business (and changed its name from Fifth & Pacific in the process), also seems to have come into its own too, as sales have finally turned higher and same store sales surged 30% in the fourth quarter.

At the same time, it also looked like even Coach's top designer no longer wanted to be associated with what appeared to be a damaged brand as Reed Krakoff, who served as its creative director for the past 16 years, left the company last year and bought back the rights to his name. Although the handbag maker is counting on his replacement Stuart Vevers to reinvigorate the brand when he takes the reins in September, there may already be signs not he will be able to make a difference.

Where the luxury market has been a bright spot in the economy, it may have reached its limit. Prada reported missing analyst expectations in its latest earnings report and said that same store sales, after rising 7% in 2013, will now only rise by low single-digit levels through January 2015 and mid single-digit thereafter. It believes the luxury market is slowing, at least in the short term, even though it believes over longer periods the market for its goods remains intact.

Prada boutique, Milan, Italy. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Moreover, the Chinese market that has been the one consistent bright spot for Coach as booming sales to the country's new middle class buoyed results, is reporting signs of a slowdown as its economy ebbs faster than analysts expected. Although Coach's comps grew north of 20% last quarter, Prada says the region is cooling. Nevertheless, it still plans on opening more stores there and elsewhere around the globe.

Coach is under attack from all sides, and it muddies its message with a plan to become a "lifestyle" brand selling trinkets alongside its purses. That's a challenge in itself, as it's laden with significant marketing expenses to get out the message of just what this lifestyle is supposed to be. It's more than any one design head can tackle and this could just be the start of the handbag maker going from bad to worse.

Tax season is in full swing. Thanks to tax preparation software, a lot of the common mistakes (i.e., missing social security numbers) are now automatically detected.

Still, they are only capable of checking for math accuracy and missing fields. They can't optimize a tax return to get the maximum amount possible or compensate for our misunderstanding of the complicated tax code. I have been using tax software and/or tax professionals ever since I started filing in 2003.

In these ten years, I have learned that no matter what software or tax professional I use, the onus is on me to know what is best for me and what mistakes to avoid. Here is a list of dos and don'ts based on the mistakes that I have personally made or have come across in recent years. Use this as a checklist to make sure you avoid them too.

• Don't assume you can't itemize: When I started filing taxes as a student, I spent a total of 10 minutes filing my taxes. I didn't know anything about itemized deductions. I just assumed it is for people who have a lot of expenses like a mortgage or kids. When I started working, I continued with my belief that the standard deduction is the best for a single-filer without a home. When I got my first job, I decided to use one of the "professionals" at a big tax preparation chain. After a few nightmarish meetings with so many mistakes that I could spot, I decided to spend a weekend doing my taxes by hand. That is probably the best thing I did for my finances. It was an eye-opening experience to actually read all the IRS publications to see what I qualify for and don't. The professional never asked if I ever donated to charity; she just assumed I don't. That weekend I understood there is much more to itemized deductions than just a mortgage. Just because you are single, don't assume you can't itemize. Read up on the itemized-deduction publication and start collecting the relevant supporting documents throughout the year. You might be surprised to see a lot of small things adding up to a total of more than the standard deduction.
• Don't assume a deduction is not worth the effort: This mistake almost cost me over $500 last year. I knew the medical deduction had a floor of 7.5 percent. (This year it is 10 percent.) I mentally calculated 7.5 percent of our income (our gross income) and assumed our expenses wouldn't cross that limit. In a desperate moment I decided to collect all the medical receipts and calculate the amount just to make sure. I earned over $500 in those few hours of effort. First, it is 7.5 percent of our AGI, not gross income; second, all the doctor co-payments, prescription drugs, eyeglasses, parking and travel costs added up to an amount I didn't think we had spent. So never assume you can't take a deduction. Always make sure.
• Don't choose a tax preparer based on his/her promises to get the maximum refund: I know a certain tax preparer in the area where I used to live who claims regular groceries and a whole range of regular living expenses as deductions for his clients. (Yes, I have reported him to the IRS, but nothing seems to have happened and he is still in business.) His business is booming because he promises the maximum return and charges a percentage of the return as his fee. It is an audit waiting to happen for the clients.
• Don't overestimate the value of your donations: Keep the receipts and use a standard guide for the value of your donations.
• Don't forget to claim all the deductions for which you are eligible: You don't have to fear an audit to claim the deductions for which you are legally entitled. Many audits are in the form of a mail requesting supporting documentation; so if you have your paperwork in order and fulfill the eligibility criteria, the fear of an audit shouldn't prevent you from taking a deduction.
• Don't wait too long to file your taxes: If you wait too long, you might be in a hurry to file before the deadline and forget to claim all your deductions. If you file with an accountant, he might not have time for a thorough review. Do your tax preparation throughout the year by organizing your receipts, and start your return as soon as the new software hits the market with the latest changes.
• Check auto-import numbers: Most major tax preparation software now have a feature to auto-import your W2 and/or investment tax forms. It is a very handy feature, but it is not always perfect — especially if you have a complicated W2 or 1099 forms. Check to make sure the numbers are in the right place and you are not double-paying your taxes.
• Check different filing status to see which will be best for your situation: If you had a major life change in the year like getting married or divorced, do the taxes using different filing status. One status might be better than another. For example, if you became a single parent, it might be beneficial to file as head of household instead of single.
• Keep all your supporting documents in order: We should be taking every single deduction if eligible, but that doesn't mean the IRS can't question the deduction. Make sure to collect all the supporting documents and file them. It might be best to scan them and store them in cloud storage to avoid losing the documentation.
• Report all your income, even if you didn't receive the documentation: I had one of my contractors ask that I not issue her a 1099 so that she doesn't have to pay taxes on it. It does not work like that. If you received income, you should report it no matter what documentation you receive. Make sure you keep the receipts for all the expenses you incurred for the job so that you don't have to overpay taxes.
• Check all your tax forms and income reports for errors: With ever-changing tax laws, sometimes companies make errors too. Make sure the numbers you receive in the tax forms tally with what you have on record.
• Start your tax planning for next year right now: Many tax deductions will work only if you take advantage of it in the calendar year. By the time you are ready to file your taxes, it will be too late.

Have you made any mistakes in your taxes that cost you money? How do you make sure you have the maximum return that you can legally get? Do you use software, an accountant, or do it by hand?

The original article: Expensive tax mistakes to avoid appeared on FiveCentNickel.com.

Additional personal finance articles can be found on FiveCentNickel.com.

Tax refunds: Why following the crowd makes sense

Cash-management lessons from the baseball diamond

Sympathy for the banker

Many think of the Alternative Minimum Tax as something only rich people pay. But even with tax reform having reduced its bite, the AMT still affects many upper-middle income taxpayers.

In the following video, Dan Caplinger, The Motley Fool's director of investment planning, talks about the AMT and how it's a completely separate tax system that can add thousands to your tax bill. Because it uses different deductions and exemptions, the AMT can lead to higher taxes in some cases, especially for those who live in states with high state and local tax burdens. Dan notes that higher AMT exemptions and higher ordinary tax rates should make fewer people subject to AMT, but with almost 4 million taxpayers paying an average of $6,600, it's worth looking at the AMT and considering any measures available to reduce its impact.

Source: Dominion Resources,; Dominion's Cove Point LNG facility will be part of its limited partnership.

Dominion Resources is pulling a Spectra Energy Corp. and filing for its own limited partnership. But can "Dominion Midstream" snag the same success as Spectra Energy Partners, LP ? Here's what you need to know.

What is a limited partnership?
Limited partnerships have very little to do with limitations or partnerships -- they have to do with taxes. In an effort to reward steady earnings from steady sources, the IRS allows any partnership that pulls around 90% or more of its cash flow from real estate, commodities, or (in this case) natural resources to pull in initial profit entirely tax-free. 

Almost immediately following Duke Energy Corporation's spinoff of its natural gas assets to Spectra Energy Corp. in 2007, the newly formed corporation created its own limited partnership: Spectra Energy Partners, LP. While Spectra Energy Corp. provides the cash behind Spectra Energy Partners, LP's transmission, storage, and liquid asset operations, the partnership allows the "Partners" part to rake in tax-free revenue. Dominion Resources hopes to do the same.

Dominion Midstream means business
The company created a "Dominion Midstream" business in March and has just filed for limited partnership status. When it goes for its IPO, Dominion Midstream hopes to raise $400 million from the sale of common stock - a nice cash buffer for the beginning of a new partnership. In Dominion Resources' case, its LP owns all interest in Dominion Cove Point LNG LP, which subsequently owns the company's LNG facility in Maryland.

Source: Dominion Resources, Inc .

This combines a lucrative tax status with major LNG export potential. The facility was approved for natural gas exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries last September -- only the fourth such approval in the U.S. at the time. It's already sold out its capacity to Japanese and India buyers, and expects to export up to 0.77 billion cubic feet of natural gas every day.

Where will Dominion stock go?
In reality, nothing will change about Dominion Resources. It's not building new natural gas facilities, it's not destroying its regulated utility business, and it's not selling off a stake of anything. For current shareholders, there's good news and bad news.

First, Dominion will essentially water down its worth by $400 million. That's bad news. It's doing this by selling off stock for its Dominion Midstream partnership (to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange under "DM"). But while current investors might feel as if they've been dooped out of well-deserved dollars, companies issue stock to raise money all the time. With a current market cap of $40.9 billion, this represents just a 1% dilution -- nothing to write home about.

And for $400 million, investors can now sleep easier knowing Dominion Resources is securing itself a major tax break on what could be a huge money-maker in the years to come. The U.S. has a massive supply of natural gas, and early movers on LNG exports are setting themselves to be pivotal players in the world's energy future.

It's no joke: Not only is McDonald's getting squeezed by Taco Bell's entrance into the breakfast daypart, but privately held White Castle is about to waffle it with competition as well. The tiny-square-slider seller announced on April 1 -- April Fool's Day -- that it would not only offer Belgian waffle sandwiches in a bid to break into breakfast in a big way, but also that it would be making one of the sandwiches available on the menu 'round the clock. It wasn't kidding, and that means the burger king will need to scramble to counter the offensive.

Source: Facebook.com/WhiteCastle.

Same-store sales at McDonald's fell 1.4% in the fourth quarter last year and were flat for all of 2013 as guest counts fell, even though it enjoyed higher average check values. With sales sagging across all of fast food, the $50 billion breakfast daypart opportunity appears ripe for further innovation.

Not that waffles are anything new, as anyone who's been to DineEquity's IHOP chain can attest. What we're seeing is established players looking at their menus in new ways. Yum! Brands' Mexican food chain recently unveiled its Waffle Tacos, which are eggs, cheese, and bacon or sausage wrapped in a waffle, while Jack in the Box has had a waffle breakfast since 2012. White Castle is offering a similar bacon or sausage, egg, and cheese meal that is, well, sandwiched between two waffles, but it will expand the item with a chicken-and-waffle sandwich that can be ordered anytime.

The researchers at Technomic estimate McDonald's has a 31% market share of the daypart, which generates 20% of its $28.1 billion in annual worldwide revenue. While its McGriddles have popularly exploited the pancake side of things, it doesn't have a waffle offering, which in reality it probably doesn't need. It's fended off other pretenders to the throne like Wendy's, which has tried several times and failed to make any headway at all in the daypart.

Which is why I'm not so worried about Taco Bell or White Castle now making much of an impact, either. They might be able to incrementally grow revenues as a result of adding a breakfast item to the menu -- since they're open at odd hours anyway, they may as well cater to those who might want to grab a breakfast bite -- but McDonald's hasn't waffled in its response, as its recent free coffee promotion indicates.

As the competition copies itself in attempting to stand out, McDonald's as a stalwart leader may just keep getting better and better at breakfast.