Flickr / Flaxe.

If you are mulling the idea of buying a new home, you are very likely aware that you will need to have $20,000 saved for every $100,000 worth of house you plan to purchase.

But, wait: what if you could buy a brand-new house for that same $20,000? Would you be interested?

If you said "yes", then you'll be glad to hear that the student architects at Auburn University's Rural Studio are beginning the process of marketing their 20K House Product Line, named for the mortgage amount considered affordable for an individual receiving the median Social Security monthly benefit. 

ruralstudio.org

Celebrating 20 years of "citizen architects"
The Rural Studio program was created by Auburn University architecture professors Dennis K. Ruth and Samuel Mockbee in 1993. The undergraduate offering, nestled within the college's School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture, was meant to educate "citizen architects" who would be instrumental in developing affordable housing options for Alabama's poor. 

Over the years, the school has created over 600 such architects, and completed more than 150 projects for surrounding neighborhoods. The homes were small, approximately 550 square feet, and built by the students themselves for the state's poorest inhabitants. Now, the Rural Studio wants to bring their product to areas beyond their immediate environs. 

Economically sustainable
By the year 2005, the Rural Studio program members were ready to start building their 20K Houses. The idea was simple: Create a quality, buildable design that is affordable for the least wealthy persons, and that could be replicated by contractors in other areas. The school's affordable housing concept included a development program that would infuse $16 million into the local area's economy, while giving the contractor a yearly income of over $60,000 and three assistants annual salaries of $22,200. A bank loan or government rural loan would provide the financing. 

The 20K House is emblematic of Rural Studio's multi-faceted community support model, and the notion of supplying well-engineered housing for a pittance - as well as providing an economic boost to the community where the work is being done - is an admirable one.

The question is, of course, whether the concept can truly be transferred to the masses. After all, not everyone wants to live in the space generally allotted to a studio apartment.

ruralstudio.org

A work in progress
The Rural Studio staff is aware that space can be a problem, and is currently working on a two-bedroom version of the 20K House. Currently, there are 12 styles of 20K homes, and the team stays in contact with the recipients of the experimental houses. That way, the students can learn about the aspects of the buildings that need improvement. 

So far, all the houses are southern homes, and have particular design features because of the locale. For instance, each house has a front porch, something homes in other parts of the country may not find necessary or appealing. Expanding the reach of the 20K House may very well change the design and look of the homes in a positive way.

Though the issue isn't addressed by the team, it is conceivable that the concept house could be expanded in many ways, such as size and cost - as well as the scope of the project's target audience. Perhaps 1,000 square-foot houses could be offered for larger families, for a higher, but still affordable, price. Amenities could be added, and homes could be offered to low-to-moderate income individuals and families, as well.

The possibilities seem endless, and the project is still in its very early stages. As it continues tweaking its plan to bring shelter to the impoverished, there is a very good chance that Rural Studio may be in the process of pioneering the home of the future.

After years of a robust mortgage refinance market, fewer homeowners are swapping their old loans for new ones.

That's the conclusion from mortgage data collected by Ellie Mae, a Pleasanton, California-based company that provides residential mortgage technology for banks, credit unions and mortgage lenders.

Purchase loans move higher
In a statement, Ellie Mae President Jonathan Corr said 63 percent of all closed loans in Ellie Mae's April survey were to purchase a home. A year earlier, refinance loans made up 58 percent of the total.

"This was the highest percentage of purchase loans we've seen since we began reporting data in August 2011 and two percentage points higher than the previous high of 61 percent in October 2013," Corr said.

'Days to close' shrinks
That said, mortgage lenders closed refinance loans more quickly in April, taking just 37 days, while purchase loans took 40. Collectively, the days to close averaged 39 days, the first dip to fewer than 40 days in the history of Ellie Mae's data.

The report covers only aggregated data and doesn't disclose information about specific borrowers or their loans, the company said.

FHFA: Refinancing drops
Separately, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) reported a similar decline in mortgage refinance activity for the first three months of 2014.

The FHFA reported approximately 370,000 loans were refinanced during the quarter, of which some 77,000 were through the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP).

The first quarter of 2014 was the fourth straight in which total refinances and HARP refinances declined, the FHFA said in a statement. Total refinance volume in March alone had not been as low since 2008.

Refinances for the last five years totaled more than 19 million, of which 3.1 million were through HARP, the FHFA said.

HARP still open
HARP enables borrowers who owe more than their home is worth to refinance if they meet the program requirements. One requirement is that the borrower's loan must be owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Another is that the loan must have been originated on or before May 31, 2009.

HARP expires on Dec. 31, 2015.

This article originally appeared on HSH.com

More mortgage articles can be found on HSH.com:

Current mortgage rates

Mortgage refinancing starter kit

Why hasn't everyone refinanced?

In June 2011, I invested my money equally in a selection of 10 high-yield dividend stocks. With a year of success behind me, in July 2012, I added even more money to the portfolio, and then more again in 2013. Those names offer triple the yield of the average S&P 500 stock. You can read all the details here. Now let's check out the results so far.

Source: S&P Capital IQ.

The total portfolio is now up 34.4%, after dropping 1.6 percentage points since the last report. That was due largely to one stock, which I'll discuss later. We're now down on the index by 10.7 points cumulatively -- after slipping 1.4 percentage points relatively since the last report. The blended yield remains at 6.2%.

The largest determinant of the portfolio's performance since last week was the drop in the stock of Extendicare. The stock has had a nice run-up over the past month, but Mr. Market continues to severely discount the value of the American unit here, and is taking a wait-and-see approach to the divestiture of the American unit. And whether it's sold or spun off, the unit will be separated from the Canadian operations. On the last conference call management insisted that a resolution to an ongoing investigation -- what is holding up the sale -- will be resolved by the end of June.

So how severely discounted is the company? My estimates suggest that the stock could easily trade at $12 or more per share, if the real value of the American unit is factored in properly. This special situation stock is the largest holding by far in my Special Situations portfolio. In the following article, I go through my valuation of the company and show you why it's dramatically undervalued.

For now we have more than $1,500 in cash in the portfolio. I have a couple good ideas for the cash, and I'll reveal which one I've chosen in future weeks, so stay tuned.

Dividend news

• Exelon went ex-dividend on May 14 and paid out $0.31 per share on June 10.
• Brookfield Infrastructure went ex-dividend on May 28 and pays out $0.48 per share on June 30.
• Extendicare went ex-dividend on May 28 and pays out $0.0362 per share on June 16.
• Awilco went ex-dividend on May 19 and pays out $1.15 per share on June 20.

All that, of course, means more money coming into our pockets.

It's fun to sit back and get paid, and with the market volatility, we might have a good chance to reinvest those dividends at good prices. Europe continues to be an absolute mess, and continued bad news will likely have stocks plunging again, and if they do, I'll be inclined to pick up more shares.

Foolish bottom line
I've been a fan of big dividends for a while, and I think this portfolio will outperform the market over time through the power of dividends. As I promised in the original article, I'll continue to track and report on the portfolio's progress, including news on these companies.

For many years now, we've covered the noble efforts of Nina Olson -- someone most Americans have never heard of. She's been working hard for us individual taxpayers, though, as our "national taxpayer advocate," and thanks to her office, the IRS has just adopted a new "Taxpayer Bill of Rights." Whether you're worried about a tax audit or not sure if you should contest a decision, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights can help you.

In a nutshell, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights tells us that we have:

• The Right to Be Informed
• The Right to Quality Service
• The Right to Pay No More than the Correct Amount of Tax
• The Right to Challenge the IRS's Position and Be Heard
• The Right to Appeal an IRS Decision in an Independent Forum
• The Right to Finality
• The Right to Privacy
• The Right to Confidentiality
• The Right to Retain Representation
• The Right to a Fair and Just Tax System

Here are five things you should know about it:

1. It's not really new. As Olson has noted, "Congress has passed multiple pieces of legislation with the title of 'Taxpayer Bill of Rights.'" Indeed, there was a Taxpayer Bill of Rights instituted in 1988, which created the Office of the Taxpayer Ombudsman, the precursor to today's Taxpayer Advocate Service. A 1996 Taxpayer Bill of Rights created the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate. It did more, too, and like the tax code itself, wasn't brief, summarized in a 21-page document.

2. Much of what it says will be news to most Americans. Per Olson, "taxpayer surveys conducted by my office have found that most taxpayers do not believe they have rights before the IRS and even fewer can name their rights." That's a shame -- and scary, too, for someone facing a tax audit or who thinks they're on their own against the IRS. The new bill is designed to be succinct and clear, and it's likely to reach many millions of taxpayers, as it will be included in the IRS' Publication 1, a document often included in IRS correspondence with taxpayers. Thus, someone receiving a notice of a tax audit may also be receiving a list of his or her tax rights, which is likely to be reassuring.

3. It can help during a tax audit. Many folks may not realize it, but they can have a tax professional represent them when facing a tax audit or dealing with the IRS in other ways. If they disagree with an IRS ruling, they can contest it, with their position considered. They can appeal IRS decisions and have their case heard by folks who are not IRS representatives. A particularly interesting right is the right to finality -- meaning that taxpayers should be informed about how long they have to make a case and how long the IRS has to initiate a tax audit on a particular year's tax return, among other things. There is no need to wait and wonder about tax audits and other matters indefinitely.

4. It includes some wishful thinking. For those with some familiarity of our current tax system and the condition of the IRS, two of the rights seem kind of aspirational: The Right to Quality Service and The Right to a Fair and Just Tax System. IRS employees may be doing their best, but the IRS has faced sizable budget cuts in recent years, leaving them less able to deliver high-quality service -- and leaving our tax system less fair and just, too, if it means that more tax avoiders slip through the cracks without receiving a tax audit. Meanwhile, the tax code has grown so massive (4 million words!) and complex that it costs Americans many dollars and billions of hours to prepare their returns.

Its loopholes permit many to legally avoid taxation, too. In a recent survey, only 16% of respondents found our tax code to be fair. The Taxpayer Advocate Service has reported that 61% of 100 million calls to the IRS last year were unanswered, and the waiting time to speak with an IRS representative surged from about three minutes to 17 between 2004 and 2012. With employee training funds cut from $172 million to $22 million between fiscal years 2010 and 2013, taxpayers are increasingly unlikely to receive good service. If Congress were to better fund the IRS and the tax code were reformed and simplified, these two rights would reflect what we have instead of what we should have. 

5. It offers hope. Some of the information above may be depressing, but know that the situation isn't hopeless. Consider, for example, that the new Taxpayer Bill of Rights was adopted at all -- that's a meaningful step in the right direction. As much as we may like to grouse about the IRS, the truth is that much of its future lies in the hands of Congress, which has the power to make big changes that could benefit all of us. Giving the IRS more money, for example, is likely to lead to more tax audits of tax avoiders and more tax dollars being collected. It will be money well spent, money that more than pays for itself.

Each of us has a little power in this situation, too. Consider contacting your representatives in Congress to let them know what you think about the IRS, its funding, and the new Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

Watch out! The EOG Resources gravy train is rolling through. This oil producer's 186% stock spike since 2009 has been a testimonial to the transformative force that the U.S. shale revolution has had on the market. In contrast, integrated oil majors, which were slow to cash in on the shale boom, have not performed remotely as well over the same five-year period. For example, ExxonMobil shares have risen about 36% in that time.

While EOG Resources has outperformed the industry and the broader stock market, speculation that it is trending toward flatter growth in the years ahead cannot be ruled out entirely. Stocks are inherently wired to decline after years of successive gains, especially when the gains are as immense as those of EOG Resources.

EOG Resources, however, still has more upside potential. There are two compelling reasons why investors should hold on to this stock, not only for near-term capital gains, but for more solid long-term growth.

Reason No. 1: It's time for producers to eat
In Africa, where I come from, there is a popular saying among the political class that "it is time for us to eat," which is used to justify politicians' and constituents' claims to a bigger piece of the national pie -- jobs, infrastructure, resource allocation, etc.

There is a similar arrangement of sorts in the U.S. oil and gas sector. In the years following the nation's shale boom, fortunes have largely been tilted in favor of refiners, with producers getting the shorter end of the stick. Relatively high volumes of crude oil output have allowed refiners to access their feedstock at deflated prices, lowering their costs and improving their margins. Meanwhile, the declines in price levels have compelled producers to cut back on costs and/or face slower profitability.

Now, however, the roles appear to have shifted, and top producer EOG Resources is in a position to gain.

Projections from one study by the Energy Information Administration point toward years of relatively leaner production volumes. The chart below offers greater clarity.

 Source: EIA.

The overall expectation is that production will slow after 2018, suggesting that the shale boom, which has largely been responsible for the production uptick in the recent past, is slowing. Although projections are in essence speculation backed by informed conviction, they become increasingly believable if they are shared by more than one party. EOG Resources management, too, is convinced that there will be no other North American shale oil plays with quality comparable to the Eagle Ford or Bakken, adding that production will steadily decelerate going forward.

Lower production will mean that supply will be limited for refiners, compelling them to pay a premium for domestic crude oil. This means that refiners will essentially pass on the profitability baton to producers, such as EOG Resources, which will thereafter enjoy "their turn to eat" after years of slowed profitability due to suppressed crude oil prices in the U.S.

Reason No. 2: Reassuring capital structure
Ambitious shale exploration plans by many upstarts looking to capitalize on the boom have led to relatively high interest payouts, squeezing profit margins and slowing growth. A recent Bloomberg survey of about 61 energy companies found that more than a dozen of them have interest payments of more than 10% of their total sales. This distress, according to Fool energy contributor Tyler Crowe, could prompt Big Oil to swoop in and acquire these start-ups.

While most Big Oil players are currently committed to shareholder returns and not bombastic growth, their continually slowing profitability suggests they will need higher return on capital in order to sustain continued buybacks and dividends. As shown below, higher exposure to shale plays suggests higher gains in return on capital going forward, heightening the probability that Big Oil could start looking to smaller shale players.

EOG Resources, which largely focuses on shale plays, posted the highest gain in return on capital between 2012 and 2013. Moreover, its return on capital now closely rivals that of Big Oil players, suggesting this will be the prevailing trend for shale players going forward.

Unlike the many upstarts with disproportionate amounts of debt, EOG Resources' capital structure signals a healthy debt and equity mix. It will survive the distress that other smaller players with higher debt are facing.

Source: Morningstar

As seen in the above chart, EOG Resources' capital structure signals low debt levels. In fact, it has reduced the percentage of overall capital that is debt, though marginally, from a historical standpoint. Moreover, the company has no preferred debt and relatively low dividend payouts of $0.50 a share that yield only 0.5%. While this is not exactly great news for income investors, it is good for the company because a lesser portion of its revenue goes to financing its capital.

Going forward, EOG will continue banking on the overwhelming demand for its stock and raise capital through the equity markets. This will enable the company to support continued drilling and production, producing higher sales while at the same time limiting interest and dividend payouts. Assuming this is the case, EOG Resources should grow profit at a higher pace than other players with less favorable capital structures, enabling it to reinvest even further and giving investors a chance to earn more gains on their capital.

I will tell you now that we have embraced the 21st century by entering such cutting-edge industries as brick, carpet, insulation and paint. Try to control your excitement.

Those witty words were written by Warren Buffett in his 2001 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders.

Source: Flickr / twoblueday.

But these words are more than just witty, they also underscore an important investing lesson: the dullest of businesses can make for the best investments.

The turn of the century
In the year 2000, Berkshire Hathaway purchased eight companies for $8 billion. Combined, the firms employed more than 58,000 individuals and had more than $13 billion in sales.

The simple businesses
Which eight companies did Buffett buy in the middle of the roaring tech bubble? Nothing that would've made investors hearts race in the slightest:

Source: Company Investor Relations. 

Nothing on this list is terribly "exciting," but there's more than meets the eye. 

Boring but beautiful
All too often in investing, we are led to believe only exciting businesses will deliver great returns. The thought of investing in the next high-growth phenom in the technology industry brings dreams of great riches.

Yet we can so easily forget that for every Amazon -- which has seen its stock price skyrocket by more than 175 times since it went public -- there's a Pets.com . The latter raised $82.5 million from its IPO in February 2000 and collapsed just nine months later. CNET called the collapse of Pets.com the "latest high-profile dot-com disaster."

Warren Buffett at the 2014 Annual Meeting.

But take a step back and reconsider those businesses Buffett bought. "Brick, carpet, insulation and paint." 

What is required of nearly every home that is built? Brick, carpet, insulation and paint. What industry saw one of the most remarkable rises during the first decade of the 21st century? Housing.

While we know what happened to housing in 2008, it turns out more homes were built in the 2000's than both the 80's and 90's. It's also important to remember all those manufacturing businesses Buffett bought were paid as the homes were built and they didn't have to deal with the mortgage fiasco which characterized both the boom and the bust.

Buffett was able to see beyond the pundits who proclaimed the Internet was the next big industry, and instead invested in boring businesses that serve our everyday needs. Although these companies lack the flash of the "next big thing," their products and services are staples of our economy. Their leadership positions in their respective markets don't hurt either.

This isn't to say technology investments should be avoided altogether -- Berkshire Hathaway has a $13 billion position in IBM -- or that manufacturing, service, and retailing businesses should be blindly bought. Instead, it's critical to understand the business you're investing in, rather than to follow the "market expectations" for a specific sector or company. It's only then that we'll be able to have a real sense for the value of a company.

And it's this kind of honest humility in sticking to what he knows -- even if it's boring - that has netted Buffett some of the greatest investment success the world has known.

In the spirit of World Cup competition, we're holding our own tournament in search of the Better Stock Today. We're pitting 32 companies against each other, and you, the reader, will determine the winner.

Seadrill takes on Citigroup for this first round-robin match up in our search for the better stock today.

Joel South, energy analyst at The Motley Fool, thinks Seadrill  is more than worthy of your consideration today. Successful investors have been building significant wealth for years by finding solid, high-dividend-paying stocks. Seadrill sports an industry-leading 10% yield, and with solid contract coverage and a fleet of new drilling rigs, investors can count on Seadrill to be among the best offshore drillers in the world.

Financials analyst Tyler Riggs believes the biggest reason Citigroup is the strongest buy in the field is that Wall Street has it all wrong. Instead of following the herd and focusing on just two numbers -- top-line revenues and bottom-line earnings -- savvy investors are reading between the lines on this company and finding an incredibly efficient core banking operation that's thriving. Add Citigroup's unmatched international reach to the equation, and you have a huge opportunity to get in before Wall Street realizes what they're missing.

Vote here to determine the winner of this match, and sound off in the comments. Check back to Fool.com to see who advances in the tournament.

In the spirit of World Cup competition, we're holding our own tournament in search of the Better Stock Today. We're pitting 32 companies against each other and you, the reader, will determine the winner.

Melco Crown Entertainment takes on Berkshire Hathaway for this first round-robin match up in our search for the better stock today.

Consumer-goods analyst Sean O'Reilly makes the case for Melco Crown Entertainment in this matchup. Sean believes that while growth fears in the company's main market of Macau have led to a pullback in the stock, the soon-to-be completed opening of its City of Dreams Manila Resort later this year, coupled with possible Japanese gaming legalization, mean Melco Crown should win this round of the competition. 

Financials analyst David Hanson believes the No. 1 reason Berkshire Hathaway  should win this match is the company's unmatched reinvestment opportunities. Berkshire has its hands in multiple areas of the economy, from energy to railroads, and it can choose to reinvest its hefty profits in any of these businesses. That by itself would be impressive, but the company still has the world's greatest long-term investor in Warren Buffett making these decisions. Buffett isn't young at 83, but he appears to be getting savvier by the year and is currently sitting on as much capital as he's ever had available to him. The next five years at Berkshire Hathaway look incredibly bright.

Vote here to determine the winner of this match and sound off in the comments. Check back to Fool.com to see who advances in the tournament.

In the spirit of World Cup competition, we're holding our own tournament in search of the Better Stock Today. We're pitting 32 companies against each other, and you, the reader, will determine the winner.

 takes on lululemon athletica for this first round-robin match up in our search for the better stock today.

Financials analyst David Hanson believes the No. 1 reason Annaly Capital Management  should win this match is the company's dirt-cheap valuation. Shares of Annaly have rarely been this cheap in the company's very successful history, and management's recent push into the commercial real estate space should allow its portfolio to achieve higher yields without much additional leverage. The ride isn't likely to be smooth, but long-term investors can collect hefty dividends along the way as the company finds better-yielding opportunities. 

Consumer-goods analyst Sean O'Reilly makes the case for lululemon athletica in this matchup. He believes Lululemon's problems, which have included increased competition for its yoga-apparel and management issues, are all in the past. With its new CEO, Laurent Potdevin, at the helm, Lululemon is primed to continue its growth trajectory in the years ahead. 

Vote here to determine the winner of this match, and sound off in the comments. Check back to Fool.com to see who advances in the tournament.

In the spirit of World Cup competition, we're holding our own tournament in search of the Better Stock Today. We're pitting 32 companies against each other, and you, the reader, will determine the winner.

Visa takes on Sirius XM Radio for this first round-robin match up in our search for the better stock today.

Financials analyst David Hanson thinks Visa  should advance to the next round because of the business' importance to the global economy. During the recent economic-sanctions battle between the U.S. and Russia, the potential loss of Visa's network caused the Russian government to work out a deal with the payment processor. In addition to its crucial function, the company sports some of the most impressive margins across any business. With a management team committed to returning capital to shareholders, investors would be hard-pressed to find a better long-term buy than Visa.

Consumer-goods analyst Mike Finarelli believes Sirius XM Radio should take the crown for one simple reason: a veritable franchise that includes exclusive content like The Howard Stern Show and programming from ESPN Radio. Higher-quality content affords Sirius the ability to raise subscription prices, offsetting costs as well as increasing profit. While the company has continued to grow in the face of Internet radio, there's still plenty more growth ahead when you consider existing subscribers are only a fraction of all cars on the road. All of this points to the acceleration of more cash flow through the business for shareholders' benefit. 

Vote here to determine the winner of this match, and sound off in the comments. Check back to Fool.com to see who advances in the tournament.

In the spirit of World Cup competition, we're holding our own tournament in search of the Better Stock Today. We're pitting 32 companies against each other, and you, the reader, will determine the winner.

DistributionNow takes on SodaStream for this first round-robin match up in our search for the better stock today.

Joel South, energy analyst at The Motley Fool, thinks newly minted DistributionNow  is worthy of your vote, as this energy equipment supplier looks to consolidate the fragmented energy supply chain segment by purchasing bolt-on acquisitions and leveraging its presence in 20 countries to be the one-stop shop for energy producers and service providers in the world's oil fields. With 19% market share, no debt, and proven leadership, DistributionNow has the tools to disrupt the status quo and reward shareholders along the way.

Mark Reeth, consumer-goods analyst, believes the No. 1 reason SodaStream should win this match is that it's undervalued. With shares down 25%, SodaStream has presented investors with a great buying opportunity. While the company didn't give investors the same growth rates it usually does in the U.S., it's still performing well in its other markets. There's no reason it won't continue to see success in those markets, and it'll probably return to form in the U.S. over the course of the year. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola and Keurig Green Mountain are a long way from perfecting their cold-beverage device, but SodaStream already has it figured out and isn't going anywhere.

Vote here to determine the winner of this match, and sound off in the comments. Check back to Fool.com to see who advances in the tournament.

In the spirit of World Cup competition, we're holding our own tournament in search of the Better Stock Today. We're pitting 32 companies against each other, and you, the reader, will determine the winner.

World Wrestling Entertainment takes on Isis Pharmaceuticals for this first round-robin match up in our search for the better stock today.

Consumer-goods analyst Mark Reeth believes World Wrestling Entertainment  should win this matchup for one simple reason: fan loyalty. Wrestling fans pay big money for the big events, like Raw and Smackdown. What they don't usually do are pay for the other, lesser bouts sprinkled throughout the year. That means WWE needs to spruce up its events and keep things interesting enough that people come back for more than just the big once-a-year matches. With 670,000 people already subscribed to the WWE Network, once WWE inevitably hits 1 million subscribers and breaks even, everything beyond that goes to the bottom line and into investors' pockets.

David Williamson, The Motley Fool health-care analyst, thinks Isis Pharmaceuticals should advance to the next round for one big reason -- its amazing drug pipeline. Wall Street heralds it as the best in biotech and puts Isis in play as a takeover target. A virtual who's who of big pharma has struck partnership deals. Isis already has orphan drug Kynamro on the market and has seen recent success from a mid-stage study for an anti-clotting drug. A recent sell-off has given investors a chance to get this deep pipeline at a discounted price.

Vote here to determine the winner of this match, and sound off in the comments. Check back to Fool.com to see who advances in the tournament.

In the spirit of World Cup competition, we're holding our own tournament in search of the Better Stock Today. We're pitting 32 companies against each other, and you, the reader, will determine the winner.

Celgene takes on American Express for this first round-robin match up in our search for the better stock today.

Health-care analyst David Williamson believes the No. 1 reason Celgene should win this match is its ability to open new sales possibilities for already approved drugs. By expanding indications -- i.e., having drugs used for multiple diseases -- management expects to double earnings from 2013 to 2017. Headlined by megablockbuster Revlimid, this big biotech is an oncology and autoimmune powerhouse stock that's showing no signs of slowing down.

Financials analyst Tyler Riggs believes the No. 1 reason American Express is the strongest buy in the field is the company's extremely strong competitive position and -- most importantly -- what this means for the future of credit cards and payments. In terms of strength, American Express is unmatched in the credit card industry, with its focus on just a key segment of cardholders: those who are more affluent, which means less risk and more spending. In addition, the company's unique closed-loop system puts it in an incredible position to capitalize on the changing payments landscape.

Vote here to determine the winner of this match, and sound off in the comments. Check back to Fool.com to see who advances in the tournament.

The situation in Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, bringing with it the possibility that the Middle Eastern country could soon splinter into three separately governed territories.

Will violence cause oil prices to spike?
According to media reports, an extremist group with ties to Al-Qaeda has taken the strategically significant cities of Mosul and Tikrit, the latter just 87 miles North of Baghdad.

Meanwhile, Kurdish forces have advanced south and seized the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

While the Middle East is no stranger to internal conflict -- and particularly since the so-called Arab Spring began ousting rulers at the end of 2010 -- Iraq's massive oil reserves globalize the stakes of the current violence.

According to estimates, Iraq has the fifth largest proven oil reserves in the world, after only Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Iran.

Given this, investors and energy experts have begun speculating about the potential impact an all-out civil war might have on markets in general and global oil prices in particular.

"Oil futures posted their largest weekly gain since December as a Sunni insurgency in Iraq jolted the market, fueling fears of reduced oil output from one of the world's largest crude producers," reads a recent article in The Wall Street Journal.

What past conflicts suggest ...
If history is any guide, there's legitimate reason for concern.

As the following chart shows, oil prices spiked, albeit temporarily, both times military conflict enveloped Iraq -- that is, during the first and second Gulf Wars.

For enterprising investors, do specific companies or industries stand to profit from the developing series of unfortunate events?

"As investors try to determine what stocks and which sectors would benefit if we continue to see troubles in Iraq, it's logical that more defensive sectors would benefit, and especially the defense stocks themselves," an investment strategist told Yahoo!'s Chuck Mikolajczak.

The companies that come immediately to mind are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and United Technologies.

Another option is to consider a defense sector exchange-traded fund like the iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense , which "seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of U.S. equities in the aerospace and defense sector."

A more cautious approach
While strategies like this seem to make sense, I would nevertheless urge investors to respond cautiously to news like this.

I say this for two reasons. First, it's well known that trading in and out of stocks based on geopolitical events is an almost certain loser. Even if you guess right, your gains will nevertheless be eroded thanks to trading fees and treatment as ordinary income.

And second, you can rest assured that you're already late to this game, as hedge funds and other sophisticated traders will have long ago made their move and extracted much of the profit from a short-term strategy of geopolitical arbitrage.

The smart thing to do, in other words, is absolutely nothing. As my colleague Morgan Housel recently wrote: "I've learned that 'do nothing' is the best advice for almost everyone almost all the time."

When Intel pre-announced materially higher numbers for its Q2 than it had originally guided for, shares of the chip giant lit up to the tune of 6.83%, closing just shy of $30 per share -- a multiyear high. However, smaller PC chip vendor Advanced Micro Devices saw its shares slump 0.23% in Friday's session. While some may argue that what's good for Intel is good for AMD, the market was signaling otherwise.

Intel's beat was driven by corporate PCs; AMD doesn't participate much here
AMD's overall share of the PC microprocessor market is somewhere in the range of 15%-20% with market share within different sub-segments varying. In low-end consumer PCs, for example, AMD has traditionally had north of 50% share, according to Intel's Kirk Skaugen. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Intel's share within corporate PCs has traditionally been over 90%.

So if Intel's big revenue beat is due to business PC sales that are coming in stronger than expected, then it is unlikely that AMD benefited to any meaningful extent this quarter. AMD's PC business is very highly levered to consumer-oriented desktop computers and the low end of the consumer notebook space. Thus, ultimately it will be the secular trends in those segments -- as well as the company's ability to maintain/gain share here -- that will tell the tale.

Key question: Can AMD actually hold or gain share in consumer PCs?
While Intel's business update cited strong performance in business PCs, the question still remains as to whether the consumer PC business in general is set to bottom. This is something that, unfortunately, nobody can predict, but causal observation of the price points and quality of PC designs on the market suggests that, at the very least, there's longer-term hope.

That said, many of the slicker low-cost PC designs have gone to Intel's Celeron and Pentium lineup of chips rather than AMD's Kabini or Beema. For example, notebooks based on Google's Chrome OS are now mostly Intel-powered (with a couple of ARM Holdings-based designs from the likes of Samsung and a few others still on the market). So, if a Chromebook sells in place of a low-cost Windows 8.1 machine, Intel is likely to benefit at the expense of AMD.

However, it's not just Chrome. For example, the Toshiba Satellite Click 2 Windows 8.1 convertible is powered by Intel's Bay Trail-M silicon, but last year's model was powered by an AMD chip. While this (and a couple of other examples) doesn't necessarily point to AMD losing share (for instance, AMD's parts may have wound up in upcoming designs that ultimately sell in higher volumes than some of these converted designs do), it does pay to be cautious here.

Foolish bottom line
AMD may very well do better than expected this quarter, and who knows, perhaps the consumer PC market is getting better as well and AMD's share position is better than it seems. However, the market today was very cautious about running AMD up in sympathy, and for the reasons I've outlined, that's not surprising.

Technological advances and the rapid growth in horizontal drilling have unlocked a number of exciting plays within West Texas' Permian Basin that are believed to have unparalleled resource potential.

The Spraberry/Wolfcamp formation, for instance, could hold some 50 billion barrels of oil equivalent, according to Pioneer Natural Resources , one of the premier operators in the basin. That's nearly double the resource potential of the prolific Eagle Ford shale.

For investors looking to capitalize on the Permian's explosive potential, one of the most attractive options is Concho Resources , a pure-play Permian-focused oil and gas producer whose vast, high-quality acreage position in the basin and aggressive plans to accelerate growth could lead to a big payday for its shareholders.

Photo credit: LINN Energy LLC

Permian-fueled growth
Midland, Texas-based Concho Resources is an independent oil and gas company with primary assets located in the Permian Basin of western Texas and southeastern New Mexico. Concho's most prized asset is the Permian's Delaware Basin, where the company is spending more than two-thirds of its upstream capital budget this year.

In the first quarter, strong and consistent performance in the Delaware Basin, where Concho is making greater use of horizontal drilling to coax more oil and gas from the ground, fueled 18% year-over-year growth in company-wide production, as first-quarter net horizontal production from the Delaware Basin surged 82% year over year and 18% sequentially to 42.3 Mboe/d.

As a result of this strong production growth and higher realized oil and gas prices, Concho's first-quarter adjusted net income jumped to $106.6 million, or $1.01 per diluted share, up from $60.3 million, or $0.58 per diluted share, in the year-earlier quarter, and operating cash flow surged 117% year over year to $476.0 million.

In addition to rapid production growth, the company has managed to significantly reduce well costs and the average number of days it takes to drill a horizontal lateral well. Well costs on a typical well have fallen from $5.6 million to just $5 million over the past six months, while drilling days in the northern and southern Delaware Basin have declined by 21% and 18%, respectively, over the same period.

Aggressive three-year growth plan
While these are already no doubt impressive accomplishments, Concho's future looks even brighter as it embarks on its aggressive three-year growth plan, which it announced in November of last year. This so-called "two by three' plan aims to double the company's annual production to over 67 million barrels of oil equivalent ("MMBoe") by 2016, implying a 25% compound annual growth rate.

The key thing to note about this plan is that it should significantly improve the company's returns, margins, and cash flows because the new production will be increasingly oil-weighted. This should allow the company to fund an increasing portion of its capital expenses from operating cash flow and allow it to improve its balance sheet and reduce its leverage ratio (debt-to-EBITDAX) to less than 1.5x by 2016.  

Massive resource potential
Another reason to be bullish on Concho is because the company may be sitting on a truly massive quantity of oil and gas that's not reflected in its share price. According to the company's estimates, its resource potential in the Permian is more than 6x its current proven reserves. As it delineates and derisks its acreage over the next few years, it could add a whole lot more barrels to its proven reserves, boosting its net asset value and share price.

Indeed, this is a common trait among many Permian-focused operators. Pioneer Natural Resources, for instance, estimates that its additional net recoverable resource potential in the Permian is 22x its current proven reserves. Similarly, Diamondback Energy pegs its total recoverable resource potential in the basin at 393 million BOE, more than 6x its current proven reserves of 63.6 million BOE.

Investor takeaway
Concho's massive, high-quality acreage position in the Delaware Basin, aggressive three-year growth plan, and expected improvement in margins and cash flows make it a compelling way of investing in the resurgence of the Permian Basin. While shares of Concho aren't exactly cheap -- the company trades at roughly 25x forward earnings and just under 4x book value -- successful delineation of its Delaware Basin acreage offers huge upside potential that could lead to multiple expansion over the next few years.

The holy grail of drug development is blockbuster status, the unofficial stamp of commercial success awarded to therapies when their sales eclipse $1 billion annually. Developing blockbuster drugs, however, is anything but easy.

It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to successfully usher a new drug compound through pre-clinical research, clinical trials, and regulators, and roughly nine out of 10 drugs that do make it into human trials will end up on the cutting-room floor.

Given that the odds are stacked against them, drugmakers Johnson & Johnson , Merck , and Pfizer spent a combined $22 billion on research and development last year.

JNJ Research and Development Expense (Annual) data by YCharts

That said, let's see which of these three companies offers the deepest bench of late-stage drugs that may end up making it to market.

Source: author's calculations.

1. Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson has been one of the most successful drugmakers. The company has launched a slate of winners over the past three years that includes anticoagulant Xarelto, diabetes drug Invokana, and prostate drug Zytiga.

J&J hopes to add to that success with a host of promising new compounds, including Imbruvica, a drug co-developed by Pharmacyclics and recently approved to treat mantle cell lymphoma and previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Further down the pipeline, J&J plans to file for FDA approval of sirukumab, a potential Remicade successor for rheumatoid arthritis; guselkumab, a treatment for psoriasis; esketamine, a treatment for treatment-resistant depression; daratumumab, for use in refractory multiple myeloma; and ARN-509, a potential Zytiga successor, all by 2017.

2. Merck
The patent cliff hasn't been kind to Merck. Expiration on key drugs such as the $5 billion-a-year Singulair cut sales by 7% last year, but that could be yesterday's news.

Source: Merck & Co.

The company's patent calendar looks much better for the remainder of the decade, with the biggest challenge facing its $2.8 billion cholesterol-fighting drug Zetia, which loses protection in 2017.

That means products in Merck's pipeline may have a chance to kick-start top-line growth again.

Merck has already notched FDA approval this year for two new allergy drugs: Grastek and Ragwitek, and an FDA decision could come this year for potential blockbuster cancer drug pembrolizumab, which has been submitted for approval as a treatment for melanoma. Overall, Merck is awaiting decisions from either U.S. or EU regulators on eight therapies, including one for thrombosis.

Merck's late-stage pipeline appears solid, too. The company has 14 programs in phase 3 trials, including a promising therapy for hepatitis C, ertugliflozin for diabetes, MK-8931 for Alzheimer's, MK-8237 for dust mite allergy, and MK-3222 for psoriasis.

3. Pfizer
The patent cliff has challenged Merck, but it's walloped Pfizer. The company lost protection on its cholesterol drug Lipitor (once the globe's best-selling drug) in 2011, and Lipitor sales have since shrunk from $13 billion in 2006 to $2 billion last year.

Overall, Pfizer's sales have dropped from $67 billion in 2010 to $50 billion last year, and Pfizer faces another loss this year, when its $3 billion-a-year osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis drug Celebrex loses exclusivity in the U.S., putting $1.6 billion in U.S. sales in jeopardy.

Those losses more than offset solid results for new drugs, including Xalkori and Inlyta, two cancer compounds that are growing sales quickly. Xalkori's sales jumped 66% to $88 million in the first quarter, while Inlyta's sales were up 40% to $88 million, too.

However, if Pfizer is going to return to growth, it will need its pipeline to produce blockbusters. One of the most promising of its late-stage drugs is palbociclib, a drug for breast cancer. Palbociclib significantly helped patients with ER+ and HER2- advanced breast cancer during midstage trials, clearing the way for a potential early approval. Pfizer plans to file for that approval by year's end.

Pfizer may have another winner in RN316, too. RN316 is a PCSK9 inhibitor drug designed to lower bad cholesterol. In trials, results for PCSK9 inhibitors, including Amgen's competing drug AMG-145, have investors thinking that PCSK9 could become a standard of care in treating heart disease and stroke patients some day.

Pfizer is also the partner on Merck's diabetes drug ertugliflozin, so an approval for that drug would benefit it, too.

Fool-worthy final thoughts
Drug development is far from smooth sailing, and these companies have a tough row to hoe in terms of continuously developing new drugs that can replace sales lost to patent expiration.

Of the three companies, Johnson & Johnson has arguably been the best at ushering new blockbuster therapies to market and offsetting risk tied to the patent cliff. Merck has the largest number of new compounds in late-stage studies of the three, so it may have a better shot than the other two at notching FDA wins for new drugs. Meanwhile, Pfizer's hopes are pretty tightly pinned on two high-profile drugs: palbociclib and RN316. That means investors should hope there won't be any late-stage surprises for these two therapies.

Apple recently revealed its health-care plans at WWDC 2014 with its iOS 8 Health app, a unifying dashboard for compatible fitness bands, medical devices, and fitness apps.

However, Apple didn't answer the question on everyone's mind -- whether or not the tech giant would launch a companion smartwatch to face off against Samsung , Sony, and other competitors.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Fancier, sleeker, and pricier
The known pieces of the puzzle indicate that Apple's "iWatch" could be fancier, sleeker, and pricier than other smart watches and fitness bands on the market.

Apple notably hired Saint Laurent CEO Paul Deneve as a vice president, and Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts as retail chief, indicating that the iWatch could be a high-end product. Meanwhile, Apple's recent acquisition of LuxVue, a power-efficient LED company, suggests that the iWatch could be slimmer and last longer between charges than existing devices. Apple also just filed a patent for a shoe-based sensor and a body-bar sensing system, indicating that the iWatch could wirelessly connect to shoes and free weights.

Although Apple has yet to formally announce the iWatch, analysts have already started to map out sales expectations for the rumored device. UBS analyst Steven Milunovich believes that the iWatch will launch at $300 this October, going on to sell 21 million units in 2015 and 36 million in 2016. By comparison, Apple sold 150 million iPhones, 71 million iPads, and 26 million iPods in fiscal 2013. 

But investors should consider two critical questions first: Would it make sense for Apple to release a smartwatch in 2014, and what kind of impact would it have on the fitness-band market?

Why Nike matters
If Nike is involved with the production of Apple's iWatch, then it could indeed be a game-changing personal fitness device.

Nike's relationship with Apple started in 2006 with the Nike+iPod kit, which consisted of a sensor in the shoe which transmitted workout data to an iPod. In 2008, it upgraded the system to work with the smaller iPod Nano and a wristband. Later that year, Apple and Nike released Nike+iPod for the Gym, which connected iPods to compatible fitness equipment. Apple eventually added built-in Nike connectivity to iOS with the release of the first iPhone and iPod Touch, eliminating the need for external dongles.

Last year, Apple hired several of Nike's top designers for the FuelBand. In April, Nike reportedly laid off 70% to 80% of its FuelBand team, indicating that it was ready to halt production of the popular fitness band. The FuelBand, which has always been an iOS exclusive, controlled 10% of the fitness band market at the end of 2013, according to NPD Group, trailing the Fitbit Flex (68%) and Jawbone UP (19%).

Nike's FuelBand. Source: Nike.

Considering how Nike has struggled on its own against Fitbit and Jawbone, it makes strategic sense to permanently team up with Apple to eliminate all redundancies. Apple's recent patents for a "shoe sensor" and "body bar sensor" suggest that Apple plans to combine the past features of the Nike+iPod alliance and the FuelBand into a single device, which wirelessly communicates with Nike shoes and fitness equipment.

Apple always leapfrogs the competition
Apple's "delayed leapfrog" strategy has served it well in the past. The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, and the iPad certainly wasn't the first tablet computer. However, all three products disrupted their respective markets because they offered superior experiences for the consumer.

This is the reason Apple hasn't announced its iWatch yet. It's biding its time, and studying the weaknesses of competing products to avoid making the same mistakes.

Samsung's Galaxy Gear watches are frequently criticized for their dependence on Galaxy phones, high price tags, mediocre battery life, and lackluster selection of apps. Other recent smartwatches from Sony, Acer, and Lenovo's Motorola Mobility are also considered ambitious, but imperfect. That's probably why Samsung went back to the drawing board, and recently released a modular reference design, Simband, for third-party manufacturers to experiment with.

If Apple addresses all those drawbacks with a sleek, high-end device that can communicate with iPhones, shoes, and gym equipment, it could turn the market upside down, just as it did with MP3 players, smartphones, and tablets.

The Foolish takeaway
In conclusion, Apple has revealed half of its intentions for the personal fitness space with software. However, investors will now have to see if the other half can tie into its hardware business with a wearable device to complement the iPhone and iPad, which together accounted for 74% of the company's revenue last quarter.

On May 6, the early favorite for surprise stock of the year, Activision Blizzard , released its second-quarter earnings. Three months removed from an unexpected gap-up in share price after its first-quarter report, thanks to a bump in World of Warcraft subscriptions, Activision notched slightly higher and has increased to $21 per share over the last month. With E3 on every industry insider's mind, investors will look for strong guidance and the company's plans for both the summer and the holiday season.

Success in the free-to-play market
Last quarter, Activision reported that World of Warcraft had a bump in subscriptions for the first time in years, thanks to a new expansion package. This was significant for the company's bedrock MMORPG, given the revenue stream WoW generates. It also silenced critics who had claimed that the game was obsolete and that it verged on being the company's Achilles Heel, rather than its cash cow.

Analysts will look at the presence of Activision's newest strategy card game, Hearthstone, for iPad and Android. Unlike WoW, the game is free to play, with revenue coming from the purchase of in-game gold used to play in "Arena" tournaments, as well as from other purchases. While it has a lower monetization rate than WoW's subscriptions, the game has hit 10 million accounts since its launch.

Hearthstone won't be the revenue goliath that WoW is, but it signals Activision's diversification in the MMORPG market, and it could potentially offset losses from WoW cancellations, offering growth potential for the rest of the year.

Bungie's big reentry
The big news that investors and gamers will be looking for is the much-anticipated Bungie-IP game, Destiny. Both are set to come out this fall. Destiny was the non-console talk of E3 2013, and it is the first game Bungie has made since signing on with Activision in 2010. At this year's E3 conference, industry insiders will be looking to hear more about the game and its mechanics.

Activision CEO Bobby Kotick has already labelled it "the biggest new IP launch of all time," and with an open-world format it will be a unique offering in the video game world. Bungie is famous for the still-popular Halo franchise, so observers will have high expectations for Destiny. But, if the popularity of open-world games, and Bungie's track record, are of any indication, this game should have no problem keeping investors hooked.

How to keep CoD alive
Aside from World of Warcraft¸ Call of Duty is Activision's other big-money franchise. With an eye toward keeping people interested in the long-running franchise, Activision has shifted the development window to three years for each of the game's three studios. This ensures each new edition of the game is new enough for people to justify plunking down $60 for it, and also gives the company time to profit from downloadable content for the existing games.

With Ghosts' impressive sales last quarter, new purchases may show a down tick this quarter. However, thanks to reports that consumers bought a total of 12 million Sony PS4s and Microsoft  Xbox Ones, and with Ghost being one of the launch titles, strong downloadable-content figures for the quarter seem likely, which will further encourage investors. 

At E3 last week, the newest entry to the saga Advanced Warfare, was Microsoft's lead-off game at its press conference. Since Microsoft devoted most of its conference to game development, the focus stayed on Activision and other spotlighted companies adapting to the new consoles rather than any serious hardware upgrades. In addition, Microsoft will have downloadable content exclusively for the Xbox One with the game, which will help Activision keep the series interesting as well as give Microsoft a significant boost over its main competitor. 

Reading the charts
After gapping up 12% off of first-quarter earnings, Activision has only slipped 1.58% in share price since then, as the support level has remained at roughly $19.60 per share. This was similar to the company's 11% gap up after its first-quarter 2013 report, which is normal because people buy the most games during the big holiday quarter. However, the stock rose 9% between reports, far better than its performance in 2014. That strong performance stemmed from high expectations for Skylanders SWAP Force and Call of Duty: Ghosts, which were unequivocally met by year's end.

Investors have every reason to expect the company to remain strong coming out of E3 and into the holiday season. It was a good E3, with Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare hyping the crowd up and Destiny looking to remain at the front of investors' minds. While an E3 bump isn't like an earnings bump, it can still provide a clue as to how investors might react to Activision's plans for the holiday season, and in the new console marketplace. 

Tesla's Model S has brought the company an interesting problem: It can't make enough to satisfy demand. Source: Tesla Motors

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk said on Thursday that the company would not sue rivals who infringed its patents "in good faith".

In a way, it was a bombshell: Tesla's arsenal of patents on electric-vehicle technology have been seen by many investors as the closest thing the company has to a "moat", a way to fend off its (much, much larger) potential competitors, the giant global automakers.

But now, Musk doesn't want to fend off the big global automakers. In fact, he now wants some serious competition. Here's why.

The moat that nobody has bothered to try to cross
When Tesla first went public, many auto-industry watchers (including your humble Fool) were very skeptical: What was to stop the big automakers -- with their huge war chests and vastly greater global scale -- from eating Tesla's lunch if there proved to be a market for electric cars?

Tesla's patents, the company's fans said. But the sense I had, from talking to people in the auto industry, was that Tesla's patents at best gave the company an incremental advantage, not a massive one.

After all, companies like General Motors have been experimenting with electric cars for decades. The basic principles are well known. 

Whatever "special sauce" Tesla had was likely to be in its battery-management software -- an incremental advantage that might get Tesla's cars a bit more range from a given number of batteries.

As I've been saying for awhile, Tesla's plan to get to 500,000 sales a year could be stopped dead in its tracks if a company like GM or Volkswagen or Ford got serious about building a rival to the Model S. 

I'm far from the only one to make that observation. That's why Tesla had a "wall of patents" in its Palo Alto headquarters: Musk and his team felt that Tesla needed all the ammo it could muster to fend off those huge rivals. 

But Musk ordered that wall taken down this week. Why? Because even though Tesla seems to have proven that there's a market for a high-quality, premium electric car -- it turns out that nobody else seems interested. 

Several automakers are dabbling with electric cars on a small scale, but nobody's going all-in. In fact, some, like Toyota , are turning away from battery-electric technology. 

There's no viable Model S competitor on the immediate horizon. And that has actually turned out to be a problem for Tesla.

Why Tesla needs some real competitors, soon
Tesla has hit an interesting roadblock in its efforts to ramp up production: It has the award-winning car, it has the customers -- but it can't get enough batteries to build as many cars as it could sell.

That's why Tesla and its battery partner, Panasonic , want to build a "gigafactory" that will produce lithium-ion electric-car batteries on a huge scale. 

The problem is, to justify that scale, Tesla may actually need some competition: It may need a giant automaker (or two, or more) buying batteries in big quantities in order to make the gigafactory worthwhile.

Tesla's upcoming Model X SUV could boost its sales even higher -- if it can get enough batteries to satisfy demand. Source: Tesla Motors

Now that Tesla is an established brand, rival electric cars are less of a threat. In fact, they will actually be helpful at this point: The more electric cars there are, the more infrastructure -- recharging stations, knowledgeable mechanics, and so forth -- there will be. 

Tesla can't do a whole lot to convince Ford or Toyota or other big-league automakers to cannonball into the electric-car pool. But it can make sure that its patents aren't holding back anyone who might otherwise be ready to jump in, and now it has done so.

A long-term vision, but a short-term need
In a post on Tesla's official blog on Thursday, Musk said, "Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal."

Put another way, the grand vision of Tesla is to convert the whole world to electric cars. 

But in the near term, Tesla's vision involves making a whole lot more Teslas. To get there, it's going to need a lot more batteries. But to get those batteries, Tesla might need a big rival or two.