The Dow Jones Industrials looked like they'd have another winning week until Friday, when triple-digit losses pushed the Dow to a small decline for the week. Earnings were an important part of the Dow's moves in both directions this week, and all three of the Dow's worst performers -- Visa , AT&T , and Verizon Communications -- has earnings-related issues that pushed them downward.

Visa's 4.3% drop for the week came entirely on Friday, after the credit card giant announced its earnings report Thursday night. When Visa became part of the Dow Jones Industrials last year, many investors applauded the fact that the card-network company had such rapid growth rates compared to the companies that were being taken out of the Dow. But Visa's high growth set high expectations among shareholders, and now, Visa's reduction in its revenue-growth guidance for the remainder of the fiscal year has investors worried. Before adjusting for currency impacts, Visa's revenue climbed by only 7% year-over-year, and even 10% to 11% revenue growth guidance wasn't enough to make investors feel more secure. Those with a long-term mind-set, though, should understand that despite Visa's risks, the opportunities to cover even more of the world with its payment services mean that Visa has plenty of chances to grow in the future.

Meanwhile, the more than 4% decline in AT&T and the 3.5% drop in Verizon are obviously related to each other, as both telecom companies share many of the same challenges. For years, both companies have had a virtual duopoly in the U.S. wireless market, with smaller also-ran carriers essentially posing little or no competitive threat to their ability to set high prices and reap big profit margins. Yet with smaller wireless providers finally getting their competitive acts together and offering viable alternatives in the data-plan arena, both Verizon and AT&T have had to consider appropriate responses. So far, AT&T has taken the more active role, firing back with new plans of its own. Verizon, on the other hand, has taken more of a wait-and-see approach, making selected moves in order to retain customers but not making it a cornerstone of its overall strategy. Neither strategy is perfect, though, and if Verizon and AT&T aren't careful, a devastating price war could crush both of their stocks, eventually leading to the need for dividend cuts and even more dire consequences in the long run.

The declines in Visa and the Dow's telecom stocks don't mean that the bull market is doomed to an imminent end. But as earnings season continues, it's important to watch stocks closely to see if slowing growth will eventually erode investor confidence and lead to long downtrends in share prices.

Photo: HomeServicesAmerica

Berkshire Hathaway has over $100 billion in common stock investments. Much of that capital is tied up in Berkshire's top 4 holdings, but the company owns over 40 individual stocks, as of its last official filing.

The stocks Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway are often looked at by countless investors hungry to ride the same ship as the Oracle of Omaha. In the following video, Motley Fool analysts David Hanson and Tyler Riggs breakdown two Berkshire-held stocks they believe are attractively priced today and poised to reward investors. Tyler details why he likes the business model at Verisk Analytics and why he is encouraged by the Verisk's organic growth, as well as its growth via acquisitions. Meanwhile, David pitches a much larger and well-known company in General Electric. Despite trailing the market over the past decade, David believes General Electric is making all the right moves by reducing its exposure to the financial industry and focusing on its manufacturing strengthens.

Earlier this year, I singled out Kimberly-Clark as a stock that would likely outperform the S&P 500 index, especially should the broader market decline. I also praised the company's concentrated business model, in which it benefits from a narrower business focus than some of its larger consumer goods peers. KMB's first quarter of 2014, reported this week, seemed a middling result: The company managed to increase net income by 1.3% against a one percent decrease in sales. Organic sales for the period rose 4% versus the prior year. Reviewing a few themes from these earlier two articles in light of the company's first quarter earnings may illuminate Kimberly-Clark's direction for the rest of the year. 

Competition still a concern
In a refreshingly open moment during the company's fourth-quarter 2013 earnings conference call back in January, CEO Tom Falk discussed competitors with candor. While he mentioned a number of aggressive peers, from Georgia Pacific to Japanese conglomerate Unicharm, in the intervening months, it appears that mammoth nemesis Procter & Gamble gained the most ground competitively. On Monday's earnings call, Falk noted that one of its most significant brands, Huggies diapers, lost a couple of points of market share to P&G's Luvs diapers during the quarter. Two days later on its earnings call, P&G touted that it had gained two points of market share in its own baby-care business, stating: "This has led to our largest market share in the past 20 years, enabling us to retake market leadership from Kimberly-Clark." 

The BRICs buy diapers
One place KMB may look to fight back is in the BRIC countries. Organic sales in diapers increased 15% in Brazil, 25% in Russia, and 30% in China. Kimberly-Clark has shifted around its baby care concentration recently, lessening its exposure in slower-birth countries in Central and Western Europe, and focusing more on high-birth-rate countries in emerging markets. We can wager that next quarter's baby care numbers within the "Personal Care" business segment will also be strong, as KMB wants to wrest market share back from P&G, and because it makes rational business sense to allocate resources where sales are manically outpacing the company's overall growth rate.

Checking in on the "FORCE to Inputs" ratio
"FORCE" is Kimberly-Clark's successful cost-cutting program, an acronym for "Focused on Reducing Costs Everywhere." It's useful to compare FORCE savings to input cost inflation (the increase in price for the raw materials Kimberly-Clark uses to manufacture its products). By doing so we get a thumbnail measure with which we can understand the company's ability to absorb cost increases through trimming operations and productivity improvements. 

At the end of 2013, FORCE savings totaled $310 million, versus input cost inflation of $205 million. The ratio of savings to inflation thus stood at a healthy 1.5 times. At the end of the first quarter of 2014, the company realized FORCE savings of $70 million, versus cost inflation of $65 million, bringing the ratio down to 1.08, or almost 1-to-1.

While inflation and cost-cutting produced uncomfortably close effects in the first quarter, management's outlook for the rest of the year is more in line with 2013. The company expects to achieve total FORCE savings of $300 million, and it expects to see cost inflation in the upper half of the $150 to $250 million range. Using a conservative number of $225 million for cost inflation, the FORCE-to-inputs ratio should land somewhere around 1.33, which is not quite as stellar as last year, but still good enough for the company to manage the projected decrease in its raw materials purchasing power.

The Mexican connection
One boost KMB receives every quarter is its return on equity investments. This is led by the company's 48% stake in Kimberly-Clark de Mexico. In the first quarter of last year, income from equity investments was equal to 10.6% of all other net income. This number declined to 8.5% in the first quarter of 2014. The decline is partly attributable to unfavorable currency exchange rates, but CEO Falk also mentioned on Monday's call a slowdown in the general Mexican economy, as well as tougher local competition. While Falk expressed confidence in Kimberly-Clark de Mexico's ability to execute given tough conditions, investors will want to monitor the "share of net income of equity companies" line of the income statement carefully for the next three quarters.

Cash flow loses its edge temporarily
Cash flow in the first three months of the year was substantially lower than the prior year's quarter. KMB generated only $437 million of cash from operations in Q1 2013, versus $607 million in the prior year. The fall-off was due primarily to higher working capital requirements and a $101 million increase in pension contributions. According to management, pension contributions were substantially completed last quarter and thus won't produce the same drag on operating cash, indicating more fluid cash flow in the next three fiscal quarters.

A final theme: the mirror
My thesis from earlier this year, that Kimberly-Clark will shine in a negative market because of its narrower business focus versus larger competitors, still appears to hold, even though the market has so far managed to stay above water after a difficult start to the year. In the first week of February, I noted how symmetrical KMB's chart was versus the S&P 500 Index, implying that the stock was being favored by defensive investors:

KMB data by YCharts.

While both have recovered since then, even in an upward trending channel, KMB continues to provide a rough mirror image of the broader index. And it's still outpacing the index, albeit by a smaller margin than before:

KMB data by YCharts

What's the visual gist here? KMB is it still primed to accumulate the funds of defensive investors should the market buckle. And if the company can show progress on the themes I've outlined here, it will rise in a positive market environment as well.

At a recent analyst meeting at the New York Stock Exchange, ConocoPhillips , the world's largest independent exploration and production company based on output and proved reserves, explained how it plans to continue delivering strong returns for its shareholders over the next few years.

Though the Houston-based company has operations all over the world, its presence in North American liquids-rich resource basins -- particularly Texas' Eagle Ford shale -- will be key in driving Conoco's production and cash flow growth over the next few years. Let's take a closer look.

Photo credit: Flickr/Paul Lowry.

Conoco boosts Eagle Ford resource potential estimate
One of the more encouraging pieces of information delivered at the analyst meeting was a substantial increase in its resource base in the Eagle Ford, arguably the company's most prized asset in terms of production potential and return on capital. Conoco now reckons that it is sitting on 2.5 billion barrels of oil in place in the Eagle Ford, up from a previous estimate of 1.8 billion barrels.

The higher resource estimate is due mainly to a reassessment of the quality of the company's acreage and improved technical knowledge it has gleaned over years of drilling. Conoco is not the only company to revise its Eagle Ford resource estimate upward. Peer EOG Resources also this year increased its Eagle Ford resource potential to 3.2 billion barrels of oil equivalent, of BBOE, up 45% from a previous estimate of 2.2 BBOE, thanks largely to improvements in completion techniques and tighter spacing between wells.

Why Conoco's Eagle Ford program stands out
While there are plenty of world-class operators in the Eagle Ford, Conoco's drilling program stands out for a few main reasons. First, the company's 221,000 net acres are located in the play's sweet spot, where an ideal combination of pressure, maturity, and thickness yields extremely high oil production rates.  

As a result of this location advantage, as well as continued cost improvements, the economics of Conoco's Eagle Ford drilling program are truly impressive. Not only do the company's wells have the highest oil rates per well in the entire play, but the net present value of its Eagle Ford acreage is about 35% higher than that of its closest competitor, according to consultancy Wood Mackenzie.  

Conoco's breakeven costs in the play are just under $40 per barrel, representing one of the lowest production costs in the entire industry. Though location is an important factor, Conoco deserves much credit for improving its returns through a persistent focus on technical innovation that has delivered substantial improvements in drilling and completion costs.

Since 2010, the company has reduced both the average number of days it takes to drill and complete an Eagle Ford well and the average completion cost per unit of proppant, a key ingredient in the fracking process, by 40%. These improvements are due largely to greater use of multiwell pad drilling, which allows the company to drill multiple wells from an existing pad. Greater use of proppant has also boosted the average estimated ultimate recovery per Eagle Ford well by 30%

Having identified more than 3,000 drilling locations across the Eagle Ford, Conoco plans to spend $3 billion in the play from 2014 to 2017. This increased spending is expected to boost its production from the play to more than 250,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2017, which would represent 20% compound annual growth from 2012 levels.

Investor takeaway and one risk to consider
As an increasing share of Conoco's production growth comes from the Eagle Ford and other high-margin North American resource plays, which are generating cash margins in excess of $40 per BOE, margins should expand at an annual rate of 3%-5% through 2017. Assuming commodity prices remain unchanged from last year's levels, this should drive significant cash flow growth.

By 2017, Conoco expects to generate cash flow of $20 billion-$23 billion, the midpoint of which would imply 36% growth from last year's cash flow of $15.8 billion. If the company can achieve that target, it should be able to cover its annual capital expenditures of $16 billion and dividends in 2017 through internally generated cash flow.

However, as with all independent E&Ps, this cash flow forecast is predicated upon high commodity prices. If commodity prices fall by roughly $10 a barrel to about $100 for Brent crude and $90 for West Texas Intermediate, it could slash $1 billion or more from Conoco's cash flow outlook and hinder dividend growth.

If you've recently had a bankruptcy discharged, your mailbox may be filling with new credit card offers.

Although it seems counterintuitive, some companies actually seek out and market their cards to recently bankrupt individuals. That may be due in part to the fact that once you've declared bankruptcy, the law limits how quickly you can do it again, up to eight years in some cases.

However, just because you can get a credit card after bankruptcy, should you?

Using credit cards to rebuild a credit score
One of the best reasons to get a credit card after bankruptcy is to improve your credit score.

Your credit score is based upon several factors, including your payment history as well as how long your accounts have been open. Therefore, it can make sense to apply for a credit card immediately after bankruptcy to begin reestablishing your creditworthiness. However, be sure you wait until after your discharge is complete before submitting any applications.

Once you get a credit card, go ahead and use it to charge a reasonable amount of purchases each month. Since post-bankruptcy cards can carry hefty interest rates, you won't want to carry a balance. Instead, only charge what you can pay off each month.

It's important to keep an eye out for and stay away from subprime cards targeted at individuals with bad or limited credit. The hefty fees and high interest rates of some of these cards will eat away at the already small credit limit these cards offer.

What you should know about secured credit cards
Credit cards for bad credit and credit cards for limited credit are typically secured. That means you pay a deposit to the company before the card is issued, and that deposit is your line of credit. In addition, they may have an annual fee and higher interest rates than those offered on other cards.

While the terms may not be as appealing as those offered on unsecured cards, don't discount them completely. Issuers of secured credit cards will report your payments to credit bureaus and help boost your credit score the same as other cards. However, as with other credit cards, compare several options to be sure you are getting the lowest fees and interest possible.

And although they may appear similar, don't confuse secured credit cards with prepaid cards. Except in rare instances, prepaid cards don't report to the credit bureaus and won't help your score.

Why you might think twice about credit cards after bankruptcy
Individuals file bankruptcy for a variety of reasons, from unemployment to medical emergencies to overspending. If overspending is what led you to bankruptcy court, you may want to carefully consider whether to apply for a new card.

Credit cards can be powerful tools to rebuild your finances, but they need to be used responsibly. Be honest about your ability to limit your spending and pay off your balance each month.

If you aren't sure, try to secure a card by self-funding a low credit limit. A low-limit card may help you test the waters without letting you get in over your head. If you reach a month where you can't pay off the balance, put the card away until you can.

Bankruptcy can be a stressful experience and most certainly will impact your credit score. However, it isn't permanent, and your credit can be salvaged.

The original article Should You Get a Credit Card After Bankruptcy? appeared on CardRatings.com

More credit card articles can be found on CardRatings.com:

Sworn off credit cards? It could hurt your credit 

What's a credit builder loan?

Want to improve your credit score? Think like an insider

The war for Westeros will go on at least another two years. Earlier this month, HBO reupped Game of Thrones for two more seasons. Fool contributor Tim Beyers explains the implications in the following video.

Tim says it's an important move for Time Warner . What The Walking Dead is for AMC Networks, Game of Thrones is for HBO. Viewership for season 4's first three episodes is up between 39% and 51%. And that's only counting those who watch with an HBO subscription.

The real numbers are likely much bigger than the 6 million-plus who tune in live, and may even rival the 15 million-plus The Walking Dead drew in its season 4 finale. Game of Thrones is TV's most pirated show, after all, and freeloaders may have helped crash HBO GO's streaming servers during the season 4 premiere. Executives didn't complain.

Nor did they blink when author George R.R. Martin -- upon whose A Song of Ice and Fire book series the show is based -- teased the possibility of a movie to wrap everything up. A movie that could easily cost $100 million or more to produce.

Tim says investors should expect Warner to keep paying the freight, especially now that Game of Thrones has joined the ranks of The Walking Dead and House of Cards as a must-watch franchise that's catapulted cable and streamed TV to new heights.

Now it's your turn to weigh in. How far do you expect HBO and Warner to take Game of Thrones? Please watch the video to get the full story and then leave a comment to let us know your take, including whether you would buy, sell, or short Time Warner stock at current prices.

smashed a chair over the collective heads of its cable and satellite pay-per-view partners -- instead of crumpling to the ground, the aggrieved companies might fight back with a rake to the eyes and a low blow. 

In moving from a pay-per-view model where the company holds monthly special events that fans can purchase for a fee through cable and satellite companies to a digital streaming network that cuts those partners out of the loop, WWE may have misjudged the marketplace. While early results for the network were decent -- over 650,000 subscriptions sold in the first 42 days the WWE Network was offered -- that number falls short of the million or so required for the service to break even.

That shortfall was offset when traditional PPV sales for Wrestlemania XXX -- the biggest show of the year -- came in around 400,000 in North America, well ahead of the 295,000 buys the company had budgeted, according to The Wrestling Observer, the leading insider newsletter covering the pro wrestling industry. That's a short-term positive for the company -- the price of a single PPV is roughly equal to the $60 cost of a six-month subscription to the network (though the WWE only gets around a 50% share of PPV sales). But it also shows that customers might not migrate to the network as quickly as the company hoped. 

Customer reluctance to make the switch was not a problem for Wrestlemania because of the strong traditional PPV sales, but it could be a major issue going forward as all three major PPV providers mull dropping WWE's events.

A slow transformation

In launching its digital streaming network WWE, essentially told its three major PPV partners -- in Demand (which delivers PPV content to the major cable companies), DirecTV , and Dish Network  -- thank you and goodbye. In theory the network makes it so WWE no longer needs to share revenue with the PPV providers. Under the old model WWE produced and bore all the expense for its PPV shows while its carrier partners took a 50% or so cut for delivering it to their customers who ordered.

That was a pretty sweet deal for the middleman, which carried none of the risk but claimed half of the proceeds. The WWE Network ends that practice and puts more of the money in WWE's hands. As you might imagine, that angered the cable companies who face the immediate loss of some PPV revenue and the eventual loss of all of it. Faced with that, all three companies have made noise about dropping WWE's future PPVs in retaliation.

This would not have been a major issue if the network revenue was making up for the PPV loss, but it's not. If the PPV companies follow through on the threat, it's potentially a major revenue hit to WWE.

Dish did not carry Elimination Chamber, the PPV that aired before Wrestlemania XXX, but relented and carried the big show along with the other two carriers. That makes sense because Wrestlemania is so much larger than the average WWE PPV that grabbing the money from the big show then dropping the rest of them is a logical strategy for the jilted carriers.

A look at the numbers

WWE knew there would be some customers either unwilling, unable, or reluctant to subscribe to a digital streaming network who would continue to order shows on traditional PPV. The number of customers who ordered Wrestlemania the old-fashioned way shows that total is higher than the company expected. On the network WWE takes in as much as 100% of the $9.99 a month subscriber fee (when customers signup directly) to as little as 70% (when a service like Roku acts as a middleman).

If you assume an average of 85% of the revenue going to WWE, then each monthly subscriber brings in roughly $8.50 but is locked in for a six-month minimum subscription. Since regular PPVs don't draw anywhere near the number of sales as Wrestlemania let's assume that if carriers dropped WWE's PPVs it would cost the company an average of 75,000 buys at $59.99 a month of which the company receives half the revenue or around $2,249,625 a month.

To make that revenue up in network subscribers on a monthly basis the company would need to add 264,661 new network subscribers -- not an unattainable number but one that needs to come on top of the growth WWE built into its revenue projections for the network since the total loss of PPV revenues was not factored into the company's year one planning.

Losing PPV could be a positive

Buying a PPV the old-fashioned way instead of subscribing to the network makes no sense for even casual WWE fans. One PPV costs roughly $60 -- the same price as six months of the network, which gives you access to six PPVs, around 1,300 hours of archived WWE content, and tons of exclusive programming.

Still with 400,000 or so North American homes ordering Wrestlemania -- down from the 650,000 who bought it last year pre-network -- that's 67% of the total audience sticking with the old, familiar format. Of course some of those people likely also subscribed to the network but lacked the technology to port the network to a TV. But most of those 400,000 are either likely network subscribers or lost revenue should the PPV carriers drop WWE.

The loss of traditional PPV may serve as a catalyst that forces reluctant customers into subscribing, but it could also cause them to decide WWE is not worth their time. Clearly WWE's customers are more resistant to change than the company expected.

When/if the PPV carriers pull the plug it will be a defining moment for WWE. Casual fans who watch a PPV or two a year will either become a locked-in revenue stream by subscribing to the network or go away forever if they decide it's not worth it. 

Under Armour has been a fantastic pick for investors. Shares are up nearly 1,000% over the last five years. The company came through with another solid quarter during the fourth quarter. Earlier this year Under Armour posted that both revenue and the gross margin came in better than expected.  

Sizing up the competition
Another strong company is Nike . Although it's not quite as robust, Nike's stock is up more than 170% over the last half decade. It also pays a 1.3% dividend yield, while Under Armour pays nothing. But it's tough to compare it to Nike--Under Armour is the Nike of the 90's, when the company was still a very strong growth story. Over the last five years, Under Armour has grown revenue at an annualized 25%. Meanwhile, it doesn't have the exposure to international markets that Nike has. Under Armour still gets more than 90% of its revenue from North America.

The next next big growth opportunity
One of the key opportunities for Under Armour is to break into the international markets. Nike already has a strong presence abroad. Earlier this year, Under Armour announced it was entering Brazil. Great timing, considering the FIFA World Cup is being held there in 2014.

It's initially launching running and footwear in the country. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Consider the fact that Nike gets more than $25 billion in revenue from international markets compared to Under Armour's total revenue of slightly more than $2 billion. China is another big opportunity for Under Armour, and right now Under Armour only has five stores in China. The ultimate goal is to get its international revenue (as a percent of total revenue) up to 12% by 2016.

Even one of its top competitors has a strong international presence: Columbia Sportswear . Columbia gets more than 35% of revenue from outside the U.S. and Canada. Shares of Columbia are up more than 11% over the last month and a half thanks to the cold winter, which is why the apparel maker beat fourth-quarter earnings estimates by 30%. But one of the big positives for Columbia investors is that the company has noted that the strong performance actually began before the cold weather.

But will a transition to footwear be a positive?
Under Armour plans to make a move into the high-growth basketball category. It's already recruited various NBA stars to help sell its new basketball shoes. The basketball category has been a great growth story for the likes of Nike. The move toward basketball shoes is another positive, where Under Armour's growth in running shoes was in the low-single digits for March.

While Under Armour is looking to get into the basketball space, Nike continues to own the running market. In March, Nike's running shoe sales increased more than 9% year over year. Its market share for the category jumped to 63% at the end of last month versus 58.4% during the same month last year.

One worry surrounding Under Armour's goal of gaining a larger presence in the footwear market is that it could reduce margins. The margins in the footwear business aren't quite as robust as they are in apparel. Under Armour currently only gets around 13% of revenue from footwear.

How shares stack up
Under Armour's two-for-one stock split, completed last week, has made the company a bit more affordable to retail investors. The stock price has gone from more than $100 to just $50. Regardless, there still remains the valuation issue.

By all accounts, the stock appears to be expensive. It trades with a 70 P/E and a 4.9 P/S. Compare that to Nike's 21.9 P/E and 2.4 P/S. And if you look at where Under Armour has traded in the past, its current 70 P/E is well above its average P/E of 50 over the last decade. As a result, 70% of the 30 analysts following the stock have a "hold" rating.

Bottom line
For investors on the fence, the key concern is valuation. Under Armour still has plenty of growth ahead of it. But given the current valuation, investors might be best served waiting for a pullback. However, for investors looking to invest in the still- growing athletic-apparel market, Under Armour is worth keeping an eye on. 

Chipotle Mexican Grill places a great deal of emphasis on its customer experience, but it recognizes that part of increasing its brand relevance includes anticipating what the market wants. Chipotle operates in a fast-food climate, alongside the likes of the fastest of the fast like the burger giant McDonald's . Thus, the burrito maker works diligently to stay atop of its customers' values, namely by providing high-quality food, prepared just how customers like it, as quickly as possible.

Source: Chipotle Website

So what is throughput?
That's where Chipotle's throughput -- or how fast its teams can get customers through the line -- comes in. The burrito maker works diligently to promote a unique culture within each store, and thus it cultivates teams of employees who are devoted to the company's four pillars of service.

The four pillars are:

Mise en place -- having all the necessary ingredients prepped and in place.

Peak time expeditors, or expos -- having folks at the end of the line confirming orders and bagging them, which saves the cashier precious seconds during the ever-present burrito rush.

Linebackers -- having a shift manager behind the line in order to liaise the ingredient swap-out, thus allowing the meal makers to never have to turn away from a customer.

Aces in their places -- Chipotle works diligently to recognize each individual employee's unique strengths, thus allowing each manager to strategically position employees within the restaurant. This method of talent recognition, combined with strategic placement based on individual skillsets, allows each restaurant to provide the best service possible.

Source: Chipotle's Website

It's bigger than numbers
On its conference call earlier in the month, Chipotle emphasized the recent increase in its throughput numbers. During its first quarter, in its peak lunch and dinner hours Chipotle saw throughput in the 110-120 sales per hour range. The company anticipates that this momentum will continue as it strengthens its focus on cultivating the best teams it can. It's this people focus that has increased the company's assembly speed and this is also what sets Chipotle apart from other fast-food joints, like McDonald's.

Chipotle has placed its unique people culture at the center of its operational mission. Unlike McDonald's, the burrito maker has focused on implementing store-specific plans in order to recognize top performers who are empowered to achieve the highest standards possible while focusing on Chipotle's compelling vision of cultivating a better world.

Source: McDonald's Website

It's a story of culture
Chipotle looks at its employees as the future leaders of the company, and thus makes them a top development priority. In order to truly cultivate its crews, the burrito maker has positioned each of its managers to elevate and develop the people around them. This approach is quite different than that of McDonald's, which relies upon a franchise model of employment which leaves the majority of its employees out in the cold with very few opportunities for advancement. Chipotle, on the other hand, has documented clear, implementable steps to outline how team members can move up in the burrito maker's ranks.

While McDonald's swats away complaints and lawsuits from disgruntled employees, Chipotle is watching the seeds of its employee-centered focus bear fruit. In fact, every single one of the burrito maker's general managers is poised to become a restaurateur (essentially a multi-store manager) within the next year. This value system for employee promotions ensures that Chipotle will have the human capital to continue its sustainable growth.

Source: Chipotle Website

Organic in more ways than one
Chipotle's increased throughput momentum directly results from the company fostering the organic growth of all of its crew members, which will stay at the heart of the burrito maker's mission for years to come.

In this edition of The Motley Fool's "Ask a Fool" series, Motley Fool analysts Jason Moser and Brendan Mathews take a question from a reader who writes: "Under Armour announced a split, and the stock fell 5%. I am new to Foolish investing, and I don't know if this is common. What is the common correlation between stock splits and price changes?"
 
Jason and Brendan both explain that while stock splits can create interest for many investors because they typically give investors a higher number of shares, it doesn't change the bottom-line amount of money that a person has invested in the company. On the surface, splits don't usually matter and they don't create value in and of themselves, but there's also no question that splits can open up shares to a new buying demographic, and that can certainly push the price up in the short run. In the case of Under Armour, Jason and Brendan both think the share price had gotten a little ahead of itself thanks to a great holiday season and that the pull-back was probably more related to valuation than anything else. The bottom line for investors, though, is to not worry about splits and focus on the fundamentals of the business as a long-term investment.

The dollar stores are having a really bad time. Family Dollar , which recently released its second-quarter results, is the latest casualty in a highly competitive retail environment, joining peers Dollar General and Dollar Tree . A mix of factors such as cautious consumer spending, cutthroat pricing, and a subdued holiday period have led to weakness at all dollar stores.

It appears we are entering a phase in which the dollar stores will cut back on growth plans and focus on consolidation. Family Dollar was first out of the gate, announcing earlier this month that it will close 370 under-performing stores, slash its workforce, and cut prices. These signs are ominous and it seems there will be no respite for Family Dollar going forward.

An overcrowded space
During tough economic times, the dollar stores saw solid growth as consumers sought to save every penny. This led to rapid expansion, but now the number of stores in this space is making growth difficult to come by.

It is not surprising that Family Dollar is cutting its square-footage growth projections and looking to control costs after a 35% drop in earnings in the second quarter. The company's same-store sales were down 3.8% year over year in the previous quarter, marking the worst performance among peers. It now plans to slash prices for about 1,000 basic items in a bid to boost traffic. 

Peers doing better, but not by much
Family Dollar was the worst-performing dollar store last year, with a stock gain of just 3%, while Dollar General and Dollar Tree shares appreciated by more than 40%. But as things stand, an investment in any of these stocks doesn't make much sense.

Dollar General, the biggest chain of the lot, reported just 1.3% in same-store sales growth in the fourth quarter. Analysts had expected more robust growth of 4.5%. Dollar General's earnings forecast for the current fiscal year is another concern. The retailer expects to earn $3.50 per share, well below the $3.69 consensus. Since management isn't particularly confident about a bump in consumer spending going forward, it won't come as a big surprise if its same-store sales start declining.

Dollar Tree is headed in the same direction. Its revenue and earnings expectations for the current year are quite weak, and since it is the smallest dollar store of the lot, there's a risk of being crowded out by its competitors. Wal-Mart and Target are also focusing on smaller-format stores to increase sales, intensifying the competition in an already overcrowded area. 

Dollar Tree intends to open 375 new stores this year, but weakening comps and less-productive stores might derail the company's plans.

Target and Wal-Mart forays
This year, Wal-Mart plans to open up to 300 new Express and Neighborhood Market stores that are smaller than a typical supercenter. Same-store sales at these smaller stores were up 4% in the last fiscal year, turning in a better performance than its larger sites. This has encouraged Wal-Mart to invade the dollar store space in a more aggressive fashion, which is why it has doubled the planned buildout of these smaller-format stores in 2014.

Target is also testing its TargetExpress format, which will be a fifth of the size of its typical location. Target has leased out a location in Minneapolis for one trial, but it might build more such stores if it receives positive feedback. 

The bottom line
Family Dollar's store closures and job cuts could be just the beginning. if same-store sales keep dwindling, its peers might also have to resort to such measures. After a really good performance in 2013, the dollar stores have lost their charm; investors should stay away. 

Amazon.com has a chance to provide a console option for millions of households with its Fire TV. The console may not replace high-end devices, but it could steal market share from the dominant products. Are we at a point where Sony should start to get worried?

Sony has sold millions of its new console since November's launch of PlayStation 4. Its problem in keeping up supplies of the PlayStation 4, the plan to debut a streaming gaming service, and its Project Morpheus are reasons why it shouldn't be scared of Fire TV.

The supply problem
Sony announced recently that the PlayStation 4 has sold more than 7 million units globally. In addition, 20.5 million pieces of software for the system have been sold in retail stores. The company reiterated that it is having challenges in keeping up with the demand for the product. As for its future prospects, DFC Intelligence says the PlayStation 4 could hit 100 million units sold by 2020.

The streaming gaming service could provide upside
Sony's purchase of Gaikai gives it a company with an established cloud framework. Gaikai is an Internet gaming pioneer. Sony plans to use its framework to debut a streaming gaming service. The service will be available on PlayStation 4. With the development, Sony will have the opportunity to compete with Netflix, Amazon, and others in the streaming video sector. The worldwide video game marketplace will reach $111 billion by 2015 from $93 billion in 2013, according to Gartner. This brightens Sony's prospects.

Sony's Project Morpheus as a future growth driver
Despite the success of PlayStation 4, Sony is interested in improving the device. The company has revealed Project Morpheus, a new virtual reality technology for PlayStation 4. Sony teamed up with NASA for the project. DFC Intelligence predicts the worldwide game console market will hit $96 billion by 2018 from $68 billion in 2013. With the Project Morpheus initiative, Sony is preparing PlayStation 4 for future growth in sales.

Competitors
Amazon's Fire TV is one of the most affordable video game consoles you can purchase. Though analysts say it is not as powerful as PlayStation 4, Amazon's ability to disrupt the console sector cannot be ignored. Needless to say, Amazon's push into the industry will put serious pressure on the sector. Amazon has a reason for entering the industry. Gartner predicts that upcoming video game consoles will help push sales in the segment to $55 billion in 2015.

Estimates vary as to how many Xbox Ones Microsoft has shipped, but Bloomberg pegs the number at roughly 4.2 million as of early April. Though PlayStation 4 appears to be outselling Xbox One, Microsoft shouldn't be underestimated. The company's release of Titanfall came with a price cut. This made the price of Xbox One the same as the price for PlayStation 4. DFC Intelligence also predicts Xbox One sales could hit 100 million units by 2020.

Foolish takeaway
Amazon has been hiring experienced video game developers to improve Fire TV. However, this doesn't mean Sony's PlayStation 4 is about to be driven from the market. The momentum of sales for the product, Sony's plans to debut a streaming service, and the company's Project Morpeus will make sure PlayStation 4 survives the arrival of Fire TV.

On April 10, Wal-Mart Stores  announced plans to introduce a line of organic items into its stores. Wal-Mart is making a growing effort to compete with specialty grocery retailers such as Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe's.

Wal-Mart plans to sell a line of organic pantry items under the Wild Oats label. This expansion comes just several days after Target announced similar increases in its own organic line of products. 

Whole Foods shares are down 20% from their 52-week high. The media has had concerns regarding the long-term viability of specialty retailers due to retailers' attempts to eat up market share. However, I would like to encourage organic grocery shoppers: Wal-Mart will not put your favorite specialty retailer out of business any time soon.

Change in consumer preferences
For the past 14 years, specialty retailers have taken less of a stake in the organic market. To some this might suggest that Whole Foods is on its way out of the market. Not true. Whole Foods' market share is decreasing, but the reason is because the organic market is quickly growing.

Organic grocery sales in the U.S. totaled $3.3 billion in 1996. Conventional retailers, like Wal-Mart and Target, totaled approximately 7% of sales. Specialty retailers, such as Whole Foods Market, earned 66% of sales.

By 2010, conventional retailers generated 54% of sales, while specialty retailers earned 39%. However, while specialty retailers saw their percentage of total sales decrease, total profits from sales increased. Put another way, the pie had been enlarged.

In 1996, at 66% of $3.3 billion in sales, specialty retailers made approximately $2.2 billion. In 2010, at 39% of $28.6 billion, specialty retailers made approximately $11.2 billion in sales. This represents specialty retail sales growth of 409% despite a 27% drop in absolute market share.

The decline in the percentage of sales and increase in profits from sales are attributed to public demand for organic grocery products. Wal-Mart and Target aren't playing a zero-sum game with Whole Foods. Specialty retailers like Whole Foods have a smaller piece of the pie, but the pie has increased eight times over.

Sales growth
Sales grew 15%-17% annually in the early 2000's before stagnating following the recession in 2008. This high growth rate enticed conventional retailers to enter the market to satisfy pre-existing consumers, resulting in quick market share gains by the conventional retailers.

Conventional retailers are not necessarily stealing sales away from specialty retailers. The decrease in market share for specialty retailers masks the reality of continuous revenue increases.

Going forward, I think that specialty retailers will survive and thrive for two reasons.

1. Wal-Mart and Whole Foods aren't selling the exact same things

Wal-Mart's introduction of a new organic line comes in non-perishable pantry products. Non-perishables, such as tomato paste and chicken broth, make up less than 30% of Whole Foods' sales. 

Nearly 65% of organic grocery sales made by Whole Foods lies in produce and prepared food. Therefore, a major push from Wal-Mart in pantry items is very different than Wal-Mart opening its own version of Whole Foods.

The prices of some pantry items like olive oil, pasta sauce, and balsamic vinegar are even lower at Whole Foods in comparison to similar items at conventional retailers.

Wal-Mart will not steal sales from specialty retailers unless it expands its line of organic offerings. In contrast, Target's new line of organic perishable items puts it in the best position of conventional retailers going forward. This is because its organic products more closely mirror the majority of products that Whole Foods sells.

2. Brand-loyalty trumps all
Whole Foods boasts the best brand loyalty of any grocery retailer, according to a Consumer Edge survey . I anticipate that faithful consumers will not walk away from tomato paste at Whole Foods to pay $0.50 less at Wal-Mart.

About 54% of groceries at Wal-Mart are deemed unacceptable for sale by Whole Foods. The demand for Whole Foods' high-quality organic groceries will not automatically evaporate just because similar items are now available at Wal-Mart and Target.

Final thoughts
The recent rush by the media to assume the downfall of Whole Foods and other specialty retailers is premature. In order to compete with specialty retailers, Wal-Mart must offer more organic perishable items.

Furthermore, I believe that loyal customers will continue to shop at specialty retailers, even with lower prices offered at conventional retailers. Preferences for higher-quality products will push consumers toward the specialty retailers.

Stockholders must temper expectations of rapid organic sales at Wal-Mart at the expense of Whole Foods. Don't sell Whole Foods quite yet. It hasn't spoiled.