Boeing released its latest report on airplane orders received -- and canceled -- through the end of March on Thursday. Once again, all the action was in 737 single-aisle airplanes, as Boeing's bigger birds simply refused to sell.

To date, the aerospace giant has booked:

• 269 "gross" orders for various flavors of its 737 regional airliner.
• Four orders for the 777 airliner.
• One 747 order.
• One 787 order.

This latest tally shows orders for 86 of the company's 737s were received over the past week, including 61 planes ordered by Air Canada, and 25 more placed by an "unidentified customer(s)." Still no sign yet, though, of the 20 new 777-9X airliners, six 777-300ERs, and 14 787-9 Dreamliners that Japan's ANA Holdings announced it was ordering a couple of weeks ago.

Boeing suffered 28 cancellations of orders for single-aisle 737s over the past week, bringing the cancellation tally to 40 planes. Subtracted from the company's 275 gross orders booked across all aircraft models, this leaves net new orders at 235.

Social Security has been controversial lately, with some arguing that cuts are necessary while others believe expanding benefits is the better move. If you're getting Social Security benefits or will in the near future, the debate has big implications for you and your retirement finances.

In the following video, Dan Caplinger, The Motley Fool's director of investment planning, goes through the current debate. Dan notes that those suggesting cuts have focused on ideas like using the chained CPI for cost-of-living adjustments or raising retirement ages, and although the new proposal from Rep. Paul Ryan doesn't directly address Social Security reform, others have looked at other ideas to save money on Social Security. Meanwhile, Dan points to other lawmakers looking to expand Social Security, using the strategy of removing the $117,000 ceiling on Social Security taxes to help give recipients bigger benefits and larger cost-of-living adjustments. Dan concludes that everyone needs to look closely at the debate to see how your own benefits could be affected, but that the battle could take years to play out.

Boeing released its latest report on airplane orders received and canceled through the end of last month this week. "Gross" orders taken in since the beginning of the year leapt to 275 -- more than twice where these orders stood a month ago.

Airbus , on the other hand, released its results for its sales through the end of March as well -- and Airbus isn't doing nearly as well as its rival.

 To date, the European planemaker has booked only:

• 98 "gross" orders for A318, A319, A320, and A321 narrowbody jets.
• 28 orders for larger A330 family aircraft.
• 20 orders for superjumbo A380 jets (unchanged from last month).
• 12 more for the A350 widebody (likewise).

That works out to just 158 gross new orders in all -- 40 more than one month ago, and barely half what Boeing has sold.

Even worse news for Airbus is that for every three plane orders it's taken in, it has lost about one order to cancellation -- 55 so far this year. So far, 11 A319 orders have been cancelled, along with 27 A320s, five A330-300s, and 12 A350-800s.

Result: After subtracting Airbus's 55 cancellations from its 158 new orders, the planemaker is left with a net of only 103 new orders so far this year. Boeing, meanwhile, boasts more than twice as many -- 235 net new orders.

Open enrollment for most people in the public exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, has ended. The final enrollment numbers, including people who have an extension for the next 60 days, are not yet available, but we already know that the public exchanges enrolled more than 7 million Americans, far more than expected. This number is in addition to the millions of Americans who have newly enrolled in Medicaid thanks to Obamacare's Medicaid expansion and people who purchased insurance individually or on private insurance markets in response to the Obamacare individual mandate.

In the video below, excerpted from Friday's market checkup, Motley Fool health care analysts David Williamson and Michael Douglass discuss the newest Obamacare news, what data investors should focus on as it becomes available, and the stocks most poised to benefit from the increased enrollment. This story will continue to develop over the next months, so stay tuned for more information as it becomes available.

It's no secret that retirement planning can seem like a dizzying process. At the same time, however, what it really boils down to is incredibly simple: Spend less than you earn, and invest the difference. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Two weeks ago, Motley Fool contributor Brian Stoffel offered up a very simple and practical way for just about anyone to retire in under 20 years. The article garnered a lot of positive attention from readers, but many were confused by a chart offered up at the end of the article.

In the following video, watch as Brian explains how by simply saving 5% or 10% more of your salary every year, you could be shaving years off your wait to retirement.  

Over the past three decades, craft breweries have been slowly picking away at the market share domination of Big Beer. Growth over the past thirty years has expanded craft beer's share of the market, by volume, from a completely negligible portion of the market in 1980 to 7.8% in 2013. While a full takeover of Big Beer by craft brewers may never happen, the growth seen in what was once only a niche-part of a huge beer market gives hope (and maybe a bit of insight) to specialty biofuel producers like Solazyme and Future Fuel Corp squaring up against behemoth Big Oil.

Ethanol is to biofuels what imports are to beer
Ethanol has steadily increased its share of the U.S. gasoline supply over the past 15 years from just over 1% in 2000 to around 10% currently, led by a handful of major producers including Archer Daniels Midland Company and Green Plains Renewable Energy . As changes to the blending limit are debated and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is refined to keep ethanol production at a steady share of the overall transportation fuel market, growth in ethanol appears to be slowing. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects ethanol production to remain relatively flat through 2040 as overall motor gasoline consumption declines and Flex-Fuel Vehicles are gradually phased out. Twenty years from now, ethanol may very well have a role in the liquid fuel market, but several indicators suggest that it will not see tremendous growth as a vehicle fuel.

Like ethanol, imported beer in the U.S. is dominated by a few, large volume producers. Grupo Modelo dominates the U.S. import market with brands like Corona. The U.S. rights to sell Corona were acquired as part of an antitrust settlement earlier this year by Constellation Brands when Modelo was acquired by Anheuser-Busch InBev. Through the settlement Anheuser-Busch InBev retained the rights to market Corona and other Modelo brands to all other countries. Following Corona Extra as America's second best-selling import brand is Heineken, owned by Heineken International which ranks as the third largest brewery in the world by volume.

While imported beers currently occupy a major portion of the overall U.S. beer market, their growth pales in comparison with that of American craft breweries. Similarly, ethanol has room for growth, but the growth will come much slower than that of non-traditional biofuel producers.

The overall beer market over the past 20 years
Per capita beer consumption in the U.S. has steadily declined over the past 20 years. A similar decline in liquid fuel consumption is projected over the next three decades as fuel efficiency continues to rise. The metrics of more interest to both craft beer and non-ethanol biofuels, however, are those tracking craft beer growth during the same twenty year stretch.

While overall beer consumption has been dropping, craft breweries' share of the market has been growing, maybe best exemplified by the growth of Boston Beer Company . Last year followed a long trend in which the craft beer industry experienced double-digit growth in volume (18%) and slightly larger growth in terms of dollars (20%), while overall U.S. beer sales by volume dropped almost 2%.

The statistic from 2013 that was somewhat counter to prevailing trends was the slight decline in imported beer sales. Likening imported beer again with ethanol could give insight into where the ethanol industry may find itself in twenty years. Imported beer was once the best option for consumers seeking an alternative to Big Beer products, but their consumption is dropping while craft beer consumption grows. Ethanol will likewise be gradually phased out from its position as the best alternative to Big Oil. Just as more flavorful craft offerings are gaining market share from both domestic Big Beer and imported offerings, non-traditional biofuels will take on a more prominent role in a market dominated by ethanol producers and Big Oil.

Grassroot beginnings
The biofuel and beer markets even share active 'homebrewers' of the respective products. An increasing number of biodiesel hobbyists produce small amounts of fuel from waste vegetable oil (likened to the extract brewers in the beer world), while even more devoted biofuel fans produce biodiesel all the way from oil seeds (a more intensive process better compared with full mash homebrewers). In both industries, these self-sufficing hobbyists tend to be evangelists of their crafts, and are reminders that both craft beer and biofuels originate from small volume processes that are competing against big businesses.

A big move away from petroleum-based fuels to sustainably sourced fuels will only happen when consumers support the effort and are willing to pay slightly more for a product that they believe in. It's happening in the beer world, and it's only a matter of time before in happens in the fuel world.

The takeaway
Volume is what separates Big Oil from biofuel producers and Big Beer from craft breweries. As volume goes up, operating expenses per gallon or per bottle go down. Twenty years from now, biofuels will not out-produce petroleum fuels, but if they can build their share of the market at the same rate that craft beer has invaded the U.S. beer market, then there is still huge potential for growth.

The key and the challenge is to find the currently small producers that not only have the leadership and devotion to go big, but who also who have a valuable and immediately marketable product that can keep the company afloat as ramp-up processes bring expenses down and margins up. Like what has happened over the past twenty years and continues to happen today in the craft beer industry, many companies will not survive the journey, but when you find the company that can withstand the tests of time, you can rest assured that it will continue to grow and share its rewards with investors for decades to come.

There has always been a battle between bulls and bears in the stock market, with each side having their own reasons why the markets will definitely go in their favor. Commonly cited evidence includes such factors as unemployment, market valuations, interest rates, and the appearance of bubbles.

But market bears have found a new piece of evidence to support their position and this one looks far weaker than the other ones.

Scary chart 1
In late 2013, a new chart comparison emerged that foretold of an impending crash in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 . It was going to be 1929 all over again, and market bulls were doomed!

More specifically, a chart went viral showing a comparison between the run-up to the 1929 crash and the performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since mid 2012. The chart showed a close comparison between the markets for the past 1.5 years capturing a high number of minor dips and pops during the timeframe. Even more scary, two months after the comparison was first released, the market continued to follow the in the comparison's footsteps.

So should investors run for the hills? Well, it's too late to do so anyway. If the chart comparison prediction was correct, the big crash would have already happened beginning in March, seeing the market off nearly 50% by the beginning of last week.

Why didn't this previously correlated chart not correctly predict the next big crash? There are multiple reasons, but I'll start with the chart-specific one. At first glance, the comparison looks almost exact, with both markets rising at a similar rate. But digging deeper, it's revealed that the scale is changed to bring the movement more in line. Removing the scaling from the chart results in a chart showing the 1929 market rose significantly higher on a percentage basis than the 2012 to 2014 market.

The market and economy also had many fundamental differences from 1929 and 2014. In 1929, the market had been moving higher for seven years (two years longer than the current bull market) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was over three times the level of the previous peak (which occurred around 1920) compared with the current market, which is less than 20% above the 2007 peak. The market factors themselves were also a lot different. Internet companies were nonexistent, the regulations of the New Deal had yet to come about, stocks were assets for the wealthy, and there was no high-speed electronic trading.

Scary chart 2
With the 1929 comparison chart heavily criticized when it was released and the chart subsequently proved wrong, you may think that marks the end of the scary chart comparisons. But another chart has been released comparing the last 1,275 days of the current bull market with the run-up to the 1987 crash, lasting 1,274 days. With the timeframes being similar and the percentage increases being in the same general pattern, this chart could frighten some investors. However, the chart also shows the 1987 market had a greater percentage gain and had an even steeper rise in the months leading up to the crash.

The close correlation over time is also not as convincing as the improperly scaled 1929 comparison chart with the 1987 comparison chart showing significant deviations from the comparison pattern in the 400- to 600-day period, the 700- to 800-day period, and the 900- to-1,000 day period. With the chart showing so many differences in the comparison during the past, it's tough to see how it has the reliability to predict the end date for the current bull market by simply identifying the length of the 1982-87 bull market.

Dangerous patterns
It's ingrained in humans to identify patterns, so looking at chart comparisons that predict a market meltdown can be very scary. However, when one looks closer, many flaws appear in the comparisons.

This is not to say that investors should ignore all arguments indicating a downside to the market, but better indicators of a market downturn would come from actual macroeconomic factors and corporate performance rather than chart comparisons to previous crashes.

Source: Tesla

Tesla Motors  is considering Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas as contenders to host its Gigafactory. Tesla's upcoming endeavor will boast about 6,500 jobs and will likely prove to be a large source of tax revenue to boot. The Gigafactory is expected produce more lithium-ion batteries than were produced worldwide in 2013. It's no wonder that Arizona is looking to change legislation to win the bid, but with Texas holding firm to its archaic dealership loyalties, why is Tesla even giving the Lone Star State a chance, beside perhaps to gain legal leverage?

Skilled labor
Texas has been in the top 10 states in the U.S. to both employ automotive workers and to house auto-manufacturing establishments. Of the approximately 34,000 auto-manufacturing employees, about 17,000 of them work in the parts-manufacturing sector, the largest of the vehicle sectors in Texas. In fact, the motor-vehicle-parts sector has seen more that 29% growth since 2009. In 2011 alone, Texas' parts sector accounted for almost $5 billion in total value of manufacturing shipments and 5.5 million in payroll.

Having such a large pool of skilled labor with extensive experience in parts manufacturing would likely prove to be quite useful when Tesla is looking for potential Gigafactory employees.

Source: Texas Governor's website

Networking
Texas has a number of research and development companies with whom Tesla could potentially partner. From automobile semiconductor producers, test facilities, and research institutes, Tesla would be among good company if it needed to expand its R&D partnerships.

Location
As of now, Tesla is an all-American brand, but that doesn't mean that future Mexican partnerships are out of the question. Locating the Gigafactory in Texas makes any future endeavors with our neighbor to the south a bit more feasible. The NAFTA superhighway, which runs through the state on Interstate 35, positions Texas to be an ideal location for both potential manufacturing partnerships, as well as for battery exports. This is especially important considering the NAFTA provision that any product of at least 62.5% American, Mexican, or Canadian parts to be duty-free.

That's where foreign trade and logistics come into play. In 2012, Texas ranked as the No. 3 state for transportation equipment exports, which were valued at over $25.2 billion. Of those to whom Texan vehicle components were exported, Mexico and Canada were the top two destinations, making the NAFTA superhighway all that more important.

Of the top contenders for the Gigafactory, Texas is the only state that isn't landlocked. In fact, in 2012 Texas ranked as No. 2 in the nation for total port-level trade for vehicle-related goods, including both imports and exports, which were valued at over $69 billion.

Source: Texas Governor's website

Considering Tesla's inroads into China and Europe, having access to bustling port trade will likely prove to be quite useful once its battery line comes on line.

Big Texan bucks
Texas has marketed itself as "Wide Open for Business" and has implemented incentivizing programs to back up that assertion. In 2005, the Texas Legislature created its Texas Emerging Technology Fund with about $200 million to spur and finance innovation in a number of automotive technology industries. At the end of 2013 only $6.6 million of that total had been claimed, including a cool million going to ActaCell, an Austin-based lithium-ion battery company. It follows that the Gigafactory might win Tesla some big Texan bucks.

Texan pride
Texas has a lot to offer, but it would be presumptuous to assume the deal is in the bag since there is still this huge issue with the state's direct-sales law that restricts Tesla from selling in the state. Is the Gigafactory enough to overcome Texas' loyalty to its car-dealerships' lobby and the infamous Texan pride?

This factory will produce more lithium-ion batteries than were produced worldwide in 2013. To meet this goal, the company will have to employ about 6,500 people, about a 20% increase to the 34,000 or so automotive manufacturing employees in Texas. The economic boost that the Gigafactory could present by way of tax revenue and jobs is undeniable; Texas would be stupid not to do all it can to win the Gigafactory bid.

If there's a phrase that's been used to get the hopes of Intel investors up over the past several years, it's been "back to school." But over the past two years, the "back-to-school rush" hasn't materialized. While Intel's lower end Bay Trail-M chips for low-cost PCs should ramp nicely for system availability during the back-to-school season of August and September, thus solving Intel's key issue in PCs, it looks as though Intel's first 14-nanometer Core processors, codenamed Broadwell, for higher-end systems will completely miss the back-to-school period. 

Back to school? Not for Broadwell.
To successfully launch a chip, Intel needs to build enough of them to support a mass launch of systems based on the new chip. What happens if the system vendors launch these brand-new shiny systems with the latest fifth-generation core processor, only to end up supply constrained, especially after clearing out prior-generation inventory at a discount? 

So with Broadwell shipping "by the end of the year," according to Kirk Skaugen, GM of the PC Client Group at Intel, at his Intel Developer Forum 2014 keynote in Shenzhen, China, it's clear that Broadwell misses the back-to-school selling season. While this seems like bad news, it's actually a good thing.

PC sales weak; inventories of both Haswell and Ivy Bridge look high
Look at the following screenshot from well-known PC hardware online retailer Newegg.com:

The channels are filled with Ivy Bridge just waiting to be sold. Source: Newegg.com.

Notice something interesting here? The i5 3570K, i7 3770, and i7 3770K are still in ample stock and are price reduced relative to their Haswell-based (i5 4670K, i7 4771, i7 4770K) peers. Now, this may seem to be the "correct" order of things -- shouldn't the older chips be cheaper?

Before PC sales fell off a cliff back in 2012, the pattern was as follows:

1. Intel releases a new chip family.
2. Older members of this family see prices rise as production is cut significantly and inventory has usually been more-or-less cleared.
3. Consumers are given incentive to buy the new chip, particularly as this leads to a new chipset sale for Intel in the form of an upgraded motherboard.

To illustrate the point, Intel's older-generation Sandy Bridge products, shown below, are priced meaningfully higher than either the socket-compatible Ivy Bridge or the newer Haswell products that occupy similar spots in Intel's product stack.

Intel's older Sandy Bridge chips command an irrational premium-the standard order of things. Source: Newegg.com.

It seems likely, then, that the channel is full of Ivy Bridge inventory. While this problem was easy to illustrate with the boxed desktop processors, it's even more pronounced with many budget and mid-range notebooks -- not coincidentally, where the weakness in notebooks is. With Ivy Bridge still clogging the channel and with Haswell and Bay Trail-M ramping, it's unlikely that the PC market would particularly care about yet another CPU launch at the moment.

Intel's Haswell is cheaper than Sandy Bridge but more expensive than Ivy Bridge. Source: Newegg.com. 

14-nanometer yields: Intel can take its sweet time
Intel's definition of "ready for volume production" for a given process is when the lead product is yielding at a sufficiently high rate so as to run the wafers. If Intel were desperate to get product out faster, it would simply eat the bad yields until it got yields under control. However, given the limited competition in the PC market from rival Advanced Micro Devices , which has yet to catch up with the power efficiency of Intel's Ivy Bridge, let alone Haswell, what incentive does Intel have to launch new products until the 14-nanometer process has exceptional yields?

Intel's Haswell-ULT, found in the MacBook Air (2013). Source: Intel. 

Indeed, given that Intel is launching a mid-year "Haswell refresh" for desktops, and the fact that Haswell-based Ultrabooks didn't appear en masse for last year's back-to-school selling season (outside of the MacBook Air and the Sony Vaio Pro 13), Intel can probably get by just fine using Haswell during the back-to-school season.

The only exception, of course, is Apple , which is probably hungry for new, higher-performing Intel silicon for the MacBook Air. Indeed, it's unclear whether Apple will just get dibs on Broadwell and launch earlier than the other PC OEMs stuck with Ivy Bridge/Haswell inventory or if Apple will move to a new chassis without upgrading the processor. 

Apple's MacBook Air (2013) was the first to adopt Intel's low power Haswell processor. Source: Apple. 

Broadwell for Christmas?
Based on this analysis, I expect Broadwell-based systems in limited quantities by Christmas, with Haswell-based systems making up the bulk of the shipments. Further, Intel's refusal to commit to a 2014 launch for Broadwell-K for desktops seems a dead giveaway -- it's not coming until Q1 2015. Notebooks that will benefit from the much lower-power Broadwell chips will likely get the initial run for that Christmas availability.  

The Nasdaq Composite Index had a monster year last year, climbing 41% in 2013, but now some of the so-called momentum tech stocks such as Tesla Motors and Facebook that drove the growth of the index last year are pulling back. Is this a signal that these stocks got a bit too far ahead of themselves, and will continue to fall this year?

On Monday's Investor Beat, host Alison Southwick and Motley Fool analyst Jason Moser and Taylor Muckerman discuss some of the factors driving this across-the-board Nasdaq Composite sell-off in 2014, and Taylor and Jason each pick the companies on their watchlists that could become great buying opportunities as the sell-off continues.

Then, the guys discuss four stocks making moves on the market today. News leaked today that Twitter has acquired Cover, an Android app that adjusts what's on your phone's home screen based on where you are. Yahoo! has announced that it will start offering original online video programming, taking a similar approach to some of the other video streaming services that have found success with original content. Procter & Gamble raised its quarterly dividend by 7%, continuing its 58-year streak of raising its dividend. And shares of SunEdison were down today, on news that the company is cancelling its solar project in India.

And finally, Taylor and Jason each discuss one stock on their radar this week. Jason looks ahead to earnings on Wednesday from Bed Bath & Beyond and says that he remains bearish on this stock. He sees nothing to differentiate the company from the competition and notes that competing companies are beginning to aggressively go after this space. Meanwhile, Taylor discusses General Motors as the process of handling its massive recall gets under way. He sees the recall and the related federal investigation as being stories that will play out for the rest of the year, if not longer, and will be watching earnings to see what information the company will give on the matter.

Sony isn't a company most investors normally associate with the health care industry. The Japanese conglomerate is certainly well-known for consumer electronics, but it also has a surprising strategy to expand into health care. Let's take a look at some surprising strategies that could eventually make Sony a major player in medical devices and personalized medicine.

A growing player in the medical device market
Sony quietly entered the health care market in 2010 through several key acquisitions and partnerships.

In February 2010, Sony acquired iCyt Mission Technology, a producer of flow cytometers, which are used to sort cells, detect biomarkers, and engineer proteins. Sony's Digital Audio Disc Corporation (DADC) then collaborated with at least three life science companies -- RainDance, Quanterix, and Caliper -- to invest in microfluidics, a liquid-handling technology used in DNA chips and lab-on-a-chips. In 2011, it acquired Micronics, a developer of point-of-care diagnostic technologies, which holds a large number of microfluidics patents.

A biochip (lab-on-a-chip), a common application for microfluidics technology. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

None of those acquisitions made much sense until September 2012, when Sony took an 11% stake in Olympus for its medical imaging technologies. At the time of the investment, Olympus held a 70% global market share in endoscopes, which are used to peer inside the human body during medical procedures. The joint venture, known as Sony Olympus Medical Solutions, formally started in April 2013.

The battle between Sony and Samsung shifts to medical imaging devices
Sony Olympus Medical Solutions is developing medical imaging devices using Sony's 4K technology to capture moving images four times sharper than traditional HD video from within the body. Sony set a firm goal for its medical business: annual sales of 200 billion yen, or about $1.9 billion, by the end of fiscal 2020.

The fledgling medical business will grow within Sony's Imaging Solutions and Products business -- which generated 730.4 billion yen (approximately $7.1 billion) in fiscal 2013 -- and eventually evolve into a new core business segment. Sony's Imaging business, which consists of its cameras and image sensors, accounted for 10.7% of its top line in 2013.

Sony's sudden interest in medical devices runs parallel to tech giant Samsung's recent investments in the industry. Between 2010 and 2013, Samsung acquired Medison (ultrasonic medical devices), Nexus (cardiovascular test kits), and NeuroLogica (medical imaging). It combined all of those technologies and launched GEO, its own line of digital radiology and in-vitro diagnostic equipment, last March. Samsung is more ambitious than Sony -- it claims it will be one of the world's largest medical equipment companies by 2020, generating $10 billion in annual revenue from its medical device business alone.

To put Sony and Samsung's 2020 medical sales targets in perspective, GE's health care segment, one of the largest medical device companies in the world, generated $18.2 billion in revenue in fiscal 2013.

Why did Sony need all of that microfluidics tech?
However, imaging devices are only part of Sony's plan for expanding its medical business. In January, Sony signed a partnership with life sciences giant Illumina and Japanese medical portal M3 to launch a genome information platform in Japan.

The platform, known as P5, will be a genome analysis service for medical and research institutions across Japan, with a long-term goal of creating personalized medicine and health care services. All of the microfluidics technologies Sony has been acquiring over the past few years, which can be used for a wide variety of diagnostic purposes, now come into play. On April 1, Sony DADC announced another microfluidics deal with Trinean to produce microfluidic disposables, which are used to store and analyze droplet-sized biological samples.

Illumina recently broke the "human genome sound barrier" by launching a system that could sequence the entire human genome for $1,000 -- a steep drop from the cost of $250,000 a decade earlier. Sony and M3 will establish the company, and Illumina will act as a minority investor.

When we put all these pieces together -- the high-end imaging devices, the genome tests, the medical portal system, and Illumina's involvement -- we get a much more ambitious health care project than Samsung's GEO.

The Foolish takeaway
In conclusion, Sony's new ventures into health care are exciting, but they aren't big enough yet to offset the importance of its game, mobile, and home entertainment businesses -- which together accounted for 54% of its top line last quarter. However, Sony is clearly serious about evolving into a major contender in the medical devices and diagnostics market, and these new products and services should be closely watched.

At the Barclays Global Healthcare Conference 2014 last month, Christopher Anzalone, president and CEO of Arrowhead Research  put up a slide suggesting that its hepatitis B drug would treat a $1 trillion market "even under conservative pricing assumptions."

But as Fool contributor Brian Orelli and health care bureau chief Max Macaluso discuss in the video below, those conservative pricing assumptions aren't nearly conservative enough. Pricing in China, at less than a third of the price in the U.S., would still result in over $800 billion to treat the 93 million people that are chronically infected with the virus. There's just no way the government or private payers could afford that much to cover one disease.

As a comparison, consider Gilead Sciences , which offered Egypt a 99% discount for its hepatitis C drug Sovaldi. That's about where Arrowhead should expect to price its hepatitis B drug if it gets approved.

iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond  could see renewed selling pressure after last week's nonfarm payroll employment report confirmed that the economy is in a steady recovery. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonfarm payroll employment rose by 192,000 in March, slightly beating estimates of 185,000. The unemployment rate was flat at 6.7%.

Fears of the effects of the "polar vortex" have subsided, and temperate spring weather helped bring about an undisrupted reading. This helps confirm that U.S. monetary policy is headed for higher rates, which would be a catalyst for the selling of Treasury bonds.

Although Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said last week that low interest rates aimed at boosting the U.S. economy would likely be kept in place for some time, the premium tied to Treasury bonds as a safe-haven investment may be fading. The Russian invasion of Crimea sparked fears that a new Cold War could be imminent, but as tensions have eased, investor anxiety has also subsided. The change in sentiment has led funds to flow out of assets like precious metals and Treasury bonds and back into equity markets both in the U.S. and abroad.

Similarly, it can be argued that tighter monetary policy was mostly priced into market expectations during the spring of 2013. At a congressional meeting last May, former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said that cutting stimulus was a possibility if data warranted the move. The Fed ultimately chose not to taper stimulus until December, but the idea that stimulus was finite led 30-year bond yields to jump 100 basis points from May to September.

The concept of present value is the reason Treasury bonds sold off last May and could continue to sell off going forward. Present value is the idea that all past and future information is priced in at the present time, making everything known about the asset part of its price. When Bernanke hinted at tapering stimulus, traders acted as if he had just hiked rates. Likewise, the positive employment report allows investors to make the case that the U.S. labor market is healthy, which increases the odds that rates will rise sooner rather than later.

The recent sell-off in SPDR Gold Trust  suggests that traces of global market stability and tighter U.S. policy are already being priced in. The precious metal was bid higher at the beginning of the year as Treasury bond prices rose and fears mounted that a war between Russia and the West could break out. As geopotical risks subsided, the metal sold off, then saw the selling intensify when Yellen hinted that benchmark rates could be elevated as early as spring of next year.

GLD data by YCharts.

There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered about the health of the U.S. economy before stimulus is no longer needed, but the employment figure on Friday was a major stepping stone. The number exceeded expectations, and now investors can price in a healthy economy, selling off long-dated Treasury bonds along the way.

Many Fools may be surprised to hear that pharmaceuticals is not the biggest segment by sales at J&J . That's because in 2013, the medical-devices segment accounted for 40% of total sales, while pharmaceuticals was only slightly behind at 39.4%, with the consumer segment accounting for the remaining 20.6%.

The reason many of us think of pharmaceuticals when we think of J&J is because it accounts for 56% of the company's pre-tax profit. So, although it isn't the biggest segment by sales, it's the biggest -- and, therefore, the most important -- in terms of profits. Let's take a deep dive into the pharma segment and see whether it can be the catalyst for J&J's share price to take off.

A strong 2013
The year 2013 was a strong one for J&J's pharma segment, as it posted sales growth of 10.9% when compared to sales in 2012. All five of J&J's pharma franchises accelerating growth (or a decelerating decline in neuroscience's case) in 2013 compared to 2012. Oncology was the pick of the bunch as it recorded sales growth of 43.5% in 2013, helped hugely by Zytiga nearly doubling to $1.7 billion in 2013, up from $961 million in 2012. In addition, the largest franchise, immunology, saw sales rise by 16.7%, as Simponi and Stelara increased sales by 53.5% and 46.7%, respectively.

As mentioned, the pharma segment is not the largest by sales at J&J, but its profits are. So, margins are of huge importance and, on this front, J&J made great progress in 2013. Pre-tax profit margin was 32.6% in 2013, versus 24% in 2012, primarily due to a positive sales mix of higher-margin products and lower costs associated with strong volume growth, as well as one-off items such as equity investment transactions.

Sales potential
In terms of sales potential at J&J, two drugs that were recently approved could make a major impact on the top line. Imbruvica (co-developed with Pharmacyclics) was approved in November for the treatment of leukemia, and peak sales estimates are around $6 billion or even possibly more. The drug was a standout performer in trials, with most patients in an extended study benefiting from progression-free cases. In addition, type 2 diabetes treatment Invokana was approved in March 2013, and analysts report peak sales estimates around $650 million to $1 billion. While it's the first sodium glucose transport protein inhibitor (SGLT2) inhibitor -- which leads to a reduction in blood glucose levels -- to be approved, it looks set to come under pressure from rival treatments, so the actual benefit can be difficult to identify.

Sector peers
Sector peer Merck is also focused on pharmaceuticals, with the segment (excluding animal health) making up 85% of 2013's total sales and 88% of total segment profits in 2013. However, in 2013 the pharma segment posted a sales decline of 7.8%. The main reason for this was a continued fall in sales of Singulair (respiratory franchise), which lost patent protection in the U.S. in August 2012. Indeed, sales of Singulair were $2.65 billion lower in 2013 than they were in 2012, which accounted for 84% of the $3.16 billion fall in sales for the segment in 2013.

Meanwhile, operating profits for the pharma segment were 11% lower than in 2012 at just under $23 billion for the year. However, Merck's pipeline could help to reverse this, with MK-3475, for instance, having the potential to deliver peak sales of $3 billion by 2020 depending on which indications it is approved for. Indeed, after disappointment in recent years surrounding its pipeline, MK-3475 could prove to be the jewel in the crown for Merck's pharma segment.

Pharmaceuticals accounted for 93% of Pfizer's total sales in 2013. As with Merck, it was a disappointing year for Pfizer, because total worldwide sales in pharmaceuticals were down 7% when compared to 2012. Among the company's pharma franchises, the major disappointment came in the Primary Care operating franchise, which saw declines of 15% in total sales. This weighed heavily on the total sales figure for the pharma segment, and was mainly a result of the loss of exclusivity on Lipitor in developed Europe and Australia, as well as patent losses on other products such as Viagra (most major European markets) and Lyrica (in Canada). However, as with J&J and Merck, Pfizer also has potential in its pipeline. For example, breast cancer drug palbociclib, could deliver peak sales of over $5 billion if it is approved and could help to offset the damaging effects of generic competition that have held back sales in recent years.

Looking ahead
While sector peers Merck and Pfizer posted declines in total pharma sales for 2013, J&J was able to head the pack and increase the pharma top line by 10.9%. Furthermore, this did not come at the expense of margins, with J&J's 32.6% pre-tax margin ahead of the respective figure for 2012 and 2011. As a result, 2013 appears to have been a very successful year for J&J's pharma segment.

However, the future could also hold strong performance for J&J. That's because peak sales forecasts for drugs such as Invokana and Imbruvica are highly encouraging, and show that there is still potential in J&J's pipeline. This is perhaps more encouraging than 2013's performance, because impressive sales potential means that J&J could have the stamina to keep delivering strong top- and bottom-line numbers during the medium term. As such, J&J's pharma segment may prove to be the best growth opportunity for the company.

In the bull/bear battle, few biotech companies have been as great a lightning rod for debate as Questcor .

Short-sellers have been vocal opponents of the company for years, believing that its reliance on a decades-old, arguably over priced drug would eventually relegate it to the dustbin. Those fears have been countered by shareholders convinced that Questcor's Acthar is an important drug with plenty of room to grow.

Over the weekend, Mallinckrodt weighed in with its own opinion, agreeing to acquire Questcor in a deal worth more than $5.5 billion. That judgment serves as a not-so-gentle reminder of the risks facing short-sellers. 

MNK data by YCharts.

Drinking the Kool-Aid
Short-sellers' stake in Questcor was unmistakably massive. Sellers were holding 38% of Questcor's shares available for trading, otherwise known as its share float, short as of mid March. That meant absent Mallinckrodt's acquisition, it would have taken five days worth of average daily trading volume to unwind sellers' 17.5 million share bet.

Putting the sheer size of that position in perspective, only 2% of Facebook, 11% of Netflix, and 13% of Keurig Green Mountain's share float are held short. Not even the highly maligned Herbalife boasts a higher short position relative to float than Questcor.

That statistic suggests Questcor's short-sellers had become far too complacent and convinced that Questcor's future was a dead end. And therein lies a lesson for investors: Even when the market is convinced of an outcome, you should still be skeptical.

Who is Mallinckrodt?
Mallinckrodt is the Ireland based former pharmaceutical arm of Covidien , a $32 billion medical instruments company. In a bid to unlock Mallinckrodt's value and free it up to invest for faster growth, Covidien spun the company off to investors last summer.

Mallinckrodt's shares have marched steadily higher since, as investors anticipate growth opportunities tied to Xartemis, Mallinckrodt's latest opioid pain killer. The FDA approved Xartemis in March, significantly bolstering Mallinckrodt's 30% market share for DEA schedule II and III controlled opioid pain killers.

Demand for such drugs is climbing as a longer living population ages, requires more surgery, and endures more chronic and post-operative acute pain. As a result, Mallinckrodt's sales have been growing, rising 8% to $540 million in the fourth quarter. Importantly, Mallinckrodt is a highly profitable company, with $0.88 in earnings per share last quarter, and specialty pharmacy operating margin of 36.5%.

Why did Mallinckrodt buy Questcor?
The Questcor deal comes on top of Mallinckrodt's $1.4 billion dollar acquisition of Cadence Pharmaceuticals in March. Both deals boost Mallinckrodt's specialty drug revenue and offset sales headwinds tied to patent expiration for its top selling pain opioid Exalgo.

In this latest deal, Mallinckrodt is handing Questcor investors $30 in cash and 0.897 shares in Mallinckcrodt for each share of Questcor. The deal, which values Questcor at roughly $86 per share, gives investors a roughly 30% premium to Questcor's prior day close and just shy of 50% ownership in the newly combined, more diversified company.

In return, Mallinckrodt gets Questcor's Acthar, a drug approved as a treatment for multiple sclerosis, kidney disease, and rheumatology patients. Last year, Acthar generated net sales of $761 million, up 50% from 2012.

Much of Acthar's recent success has come thanks to a widely successful launch in rheumatology. Last quarter, the number of rheumatology prescriptions written for Acthar jumped 19% from the prior quarter, lifting rheumatology prescriptions to 20% of Acthar's total quarterly prescriptions. As a result, Questcor shipped 28% more vials and reported earnings that were 65% higher last quarter than a year ago.

Fool-worthy final thoughts
Questor generated $5.48 in non-GAAP earnings per share last year, and Mallinckrodt expects that after removing redundant costs and leveraging its tax-friendly Dublin address, the acquisition will be immediately accretive to earnings this year and "significantly" accretive to earnings next year.

If that proves true, this acquisition may serve as a valuable reminder to investors that company specific shortcomings -- both real and imagined -- are only company specific for as long as the company remains independent. Of course, recognizing that may not keep short-sellers from taking on Mallinckrodt -- they're already short 14% of its share float -- but it may help investors remain skeptical of joining with sellers in highly shorted companies that are growing and profitable.

The three major U.S. indices and all 10 sectors ended in the dumps on Monday, as the stock market lost ground for a third straight session. Though seven in 10 stocks lost ground, today's sell-off was especially rough for high-growth names: only one of the S&P's 20 hottest performers of the last year eked out gains Monday. With bears threatening to come out of hibernation in the early days of spring, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 166 points, or 1%, to end at 16,245. 

Home Depot finished as one of the day's 23 blue-chip laggards, losing 2% by day's end. Remember: high-flying stocks took the brunt of the impact from today's sell-off, and in the last three years Home Depot stock has doubled, performing nearly three times as well as the Dow itself. Shares are somewhat insulated from severe declines with $15 billion cash in the bank and a sustainable, 2.4% dividend to its name. Consider the fact that real estate is still on the up-and-up and homeowners are remodel-happy, and Home Depot still looks like a good bet. 

While investors have been diligently bidding Home Depot's stock to double what it was three years ago, shareholders of MGM Resorts International weren't as patient -- its stock has doubled in the last year alone. But the quick to rise are too often quick to fall, and Monday's risk-shedding party sent MGM stock plunging 5.9%. The rationale behind today's slump is almost laughable from the outside: gambling revenue in Macau over a seven-day span was disappointing, mostly because of lousy weather. A bum week of sales should hardly mean an $11 billion gambling mainstay is suddenly 6% less valuable, and if shares are prone to fall off a cliff every time the weather isn't predictable, that shows you just how fragile MGM stock can be.

Lastly, shares of the fast-casual sandwich chain Potbelly added 1% today, as it bucked Monday's downtrend to finish in the black. It's one of the few times in the stock's short history as a public company that Potbelly shares have done anything other helplessly slump. The stock's heyday was way back in October of 2013, when shares went public at $14 a share, then broke $30 a share by the end of the day. Ever since then shares have been pitifully tumbling back toward their original levels. Frankly, since Potbelly's is still unprofitable and growing its sales by less than 10% annually as of 2013, I'm more excited by their sandwiches than their stock.

Intel shares are trading at a valuation discount to the S&P,  even though a large catalyst is on the horizon. Microsoft is in the process of sunsetting Windows XP, which will drive PC upgrades and may not be fully baked into the share price. Is Intel a buy here?

Intel is cheaper than the market
Despite being in over half of the worlds PC's, Intel is having difficulty maintaining mindshare among investors. The market is rewarding Intel with a P/E multiple of 13.8, a 26% discount to the S&P's multiple of 18.6 times. It seems like investors may perceive the company as an income play, as shares are yielding 3.4%, more than a full percentage point above Apple's 2.3%. The low relative valuation and high yield indicate that investors are assuming Intel has little opportunity for growth.

The reason growth expectations are low
Intel missed the boat on supplying chips for handsets and fell behind as Atom consistently lost out to Qualcomm's Snapdragon. Last year, though, Bay Trail was supposed to close the gap in terms of processing power. Testing by Engadget offered promise, showing that in three of the four benchmarks tested, the performance comparison between the Snapdragon 800 and Bay Trail ended almost in a draw. However, that didn't prevent Samsung from designing Intel out of its tablets. This is a headline-grabbing issue, but not a reason to count Intel out. The bigger near-term issue affecting the company's top line is that PC demand is likely going to see an uptick in the coming months.

Windows XP upgrades will accelerate PC Sales
Microsoft has decided to sunset Windows XP after 12 years of service. This means that Microsoft will not be supporting the operating system with security updates and software patches. You might think that most active computers would already be off XP, but many organizations won't migrate if they don't have to. The Washington Post estimates that 10% of government computers will still be running XP after April 8, when free support for the operating system ends. This sounds bad, but it's much worse overseas. The British government is reportedly paying $9 million to extend its support plan for one year after it was discovered that 85% of the National Health Service's 800,000 PCs were still running Windows XP. It's not just the government, though; according to CIO magazine, a survey of 1,077 businesses (mostly mid-sized) showed that 60% will not have migrated off of XP by the April sunset date.

OS upgrades lead to hardware upgrades
A PC is depreciated over four-five years, and the companies that tried to save money by buying under-powered hardware last time will be forced to upgrade the hardware in addition to the OS upgrade. In fact, if you calculate the cost of the difference between the cost of a new PC and the cost of a RAM upgrade, the time to upgrade the OS, and the labor involved, the difference is negligible, making hardware upgrades very prevalent. 

Low expectations, despite a catalyst
Shares of Intel look interesting considering the low valuation, attractive dividend yield, and potential growth catalyst in the coming months. The low valuation implies that growth expectations are low and make sense since Intel has been competing poorly on the mobile front.  What people are missing, though, is the catalyst of the Windows XP upgrade cycle that is likely to affect domestic and international businesses and government agencies. 

The 2014 Tempkin Experience Ratings have been released!Unsure of what that is, exactly? You are not alone. Many people are not familiar with this rating system, but they should be. It ranks customer experience for 268 companies based on 10,000 U.S consumers. While many consumer studies are better known, not many of them survey 10,000 people. Therefore, this study holds more weight than most.

The importance of customer experience
Despite this study covering 19 industries, the focus here will be on quick-service restaurants, which for simplicity purposes will be referred to as fast food from this point forward. Below, you will find out how consumers rated some of the most popular fast food companies in the world and whether a company's customer experience is improving or weakening.

This is imperative information for investors. Why? Because more than half of consumers who had a negative experience at a fast-food restaurant decreased their future spending at that establishment. Some consumers stopped spending at that restaurant all together.

And in today's online social-media world, word spreads quickly. Furthermore, the people most likely to share their bad (or good) experiences are millennials -- the most important consumer group due to its massive size and future spending potential.

So ... which fast-food companies do you think consumers rated highest and lowest? The answers to these questions could play a role in a company's long-term potential.

Third place is best
Remember that this study covers 19 industries. Chick-fil-A came in third place on this list, with 83% of customers satisfied with their experience. This was a 1% improvement over last year. For fast food, Chick-fil-A won the gold, defending its fast-food customer experience title again and giving it first place in fast food for three consecutive years. Only one problem ... Chick-fil-A is a private company. Therefore, let's move on.

Drive-in or drive away?
Coming in fifth place overall and second in fast food was Sonic . Based on the study, 82% of Sonic customers were satisfied with their experience, representing a 2% improvement over last year.

However, Sonic has some issues. It only delivered top-line growth of 1.3% over the past year, it's trading at a somewhat expensive 24 times forward earnings, and it has a debt-to-equity ratio of 9.9. The stock has soared 79.8% over the past year and 14.5% year to date. This momentum is likely to continue as long as the broader market holds its own, but the aforementioned numbers aren't overly comforting for long-term investors. Therefore, let's move on to the next potential option.

Relentless overachiever
Starbucks opened its first shop in Seattle in 1971. Throughout the remainder of that decade, very few people knew what Starbucks meant. Inconceivable, right? Over the years, Starbucks has continued to grow, never slowing down. Well, almost never. There was a slight speed bump in revenue at the height of the Great Recession. Otherwise, it has been a constant ascent for the top line.

Not surprisingly, Starbucks ranked eighth overall for customer experience, with 81% of customers pleased with their experience -- a 3% improvement over last year. Starbucks has delivered top-line growth of 6.1% over the past year, very solid for a relatively mature company. It's trading at 23 times forward earnings, offers a 1.4% dividend yield, and has a debt-to-equity ratio of just 0.4. If its customers are consistently pleased on top of all that, then the future looks bright.

Now let's take a look at the other end of the spectrum. One very popular fast food company scores poorly for customer experience. This could present a threat if its peers continue to gain ground.

Bronzing arches?
McDonald's ranked 49^th overall for customer experience, with only 75% of customers being satisfied with their experience. This likely has a lot to do with customer service. McDonald's employees have complained about a confusing menu, which has led to slower service and frustration. This doesn't allow for happy and smiling faces most of the time. The "good" news is that McDonald's customer- experience rating is 4% higher than last year, but it's still too low.

McDonald's has delivered top-line growth of 1.1% over the past year. This isn't very impressive, but it's still north of the border. The stock is trading at just 15 times forward earnings, and it offers a generous 3.3% dividend yield. A 0.9 debt-to-equity ratio combined with strong operational cash flow of $7.1 billion over the past year should also comfort investors.

On the other hand, Burger King Worldwide (80% of customers satisfied) and Wendy's (79% of customers satisfied) are outperforming McDonald's for this key metric. Neither Burger King nor Wendy's is an immediate threat to the McDonald's fast food empire, but McDonald's must improve its customer-experience ranking to avoid sliding down a long and slippery slope.

The Foolish bottom line
For public companies, Sonic scored highest for customer experience in the fast food category. While this is an excellent sign, and investors consistently drive the stock price higher, tepid top-line growth and debt should at least be on your radar.

Starbucks also scored well. No surprise there. Starbucks is still performing well on the top line, valuation is good, and debt isn't a concern. What's not to like? Investors might want to dig deeper on this coffee giant.

As far as McDonald's is concerned, it's still a solid option for dividend investors. And McDonald's is planning to focus more on high-demand items in the future, which could help fuel the top line. However, while not a significant concern yet, keep an eye on all reports related to McDonald's customer experience and customer service. If it continues to fail in this area, then more customers could switch to Burger King or Wendy's for food -- or Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts for coffee. Please do your own research prior to making any investment decisions. And if you're looking for investments to own for the rest of your life, then continue reading. 

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

What: Shares of dry bulk shipper Navios Maritime Holdings are sinking as much as 4.7% today following continued weakness in the Baltic Dry Index, or BDI, and a report over the weekend about "widespread delivery defaults by Chinese shipyards."

So what: China is the world's largest shipbuilder. It was reported that one in three ships were delayed in 2013. The shipyards are backed by the Chinese banks, and the delays are causing default fees to be charged against contracts and refunds to be delivered to purchasers.

Chinese shipyards won $37 billion in new ship orders in 2013, compared to less than $20 billion in 2012, a gain of 92% in just a year, according to Clarkson Research data.

Now what: The fear is that the shipyards are so behind on deliveries that they must be overwhelmed with orders. Too many orders can, in turn, bring overcapacity. Overcapacity leads to more weakness in the BDI. Weakness in the BDI leads to lower operating profits for companies such as Navios Maritime Holdings. The whole situation seems to echo one clear signal (whether ultimately true or not): brace for a flood of deliveries.

Navios Maritime Holdings has 12 Capesize ships that either operate based on the daily swings in the BDI, or which are under charter contracts that will be expiring this year. The chartered ships will be subject to the BDI once their contracts expire, or they will have to enter into new contracts at the prevailing rates at the time.

The flip side here is that the defaults should close the easy money spigot that has been financing the shipyards in the first place. If that takes place, the rate of future builds should slow down, which should help to correct the oversupply. It will be interesting to watch and see if the delivery situation eventually leads to a slowdown in orders and a reduction in global supply.

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

What: Shares of World Wrestling Entertainment plunged nearly 15% Monday after the company provided an update on subscriber numbers for its new streaming network.

So what: Specifically, just 42 days after launching the WWE Network in the U.S., World Wrestling Entertainment said it already has 667,287 subscribers, making it "the fastest-growing digital subscription service." For perspective, WWE previously outlined a goal of reaching 1 million subscribers -- or what management called its breakeven point -- by the end of 2014.

The news comes on the heels of WWE's sold-out WrestleMania 30 event, which aired live Sunday on WWE Network as well as on pay-per-view.

For $9.99 per month and a minimum six month-commitment, the WWE Network provides subscribers streaming online access to both live and scheduled WWE programming, including 12 live pay-per-view events and a comprehensive video-on-demand library.

Now what: However, investors remained concerned as some estimates pegged WWE Network's initial rush to drive as many as 800,000 to 1 million early subscribers by the time WrestleMania 30 concluded. What's more, a Barron's piece this weekend called out WWE on worries the attractively priced service might not make up for the company's resulting drop in pay-per-view revenue.

In any case, we should know more about whether that's actually the case when pay-per-view numbers for WrestleMania 30 are released in a few weeks. Until that happens, I think investors would be wise to refrain using this drop as a buying opportunity.