A world awash in data begets a multitude of stock screeners and tools at the disposal of any investor with an Internet connection. Suddenly, our fingertips can command searches for the most pedantic investment criteria, allowing us to build lists of potential winners with the simple click of a button. Looking for a consumer goods stock with a P/E less than 14, yielding 2.7%, that bats left and throws right? You can find it in about 45 seconds on any number of investment sites with stock screeners and sortable tables. The problem is that this data is not always correct, and is even occasionally grossly inaccurate. Especially when it comes to distribution growth for new master limited partnerships.

When an MLP goes public, it is very rarely on the very first day of a fiscal quarter, and as a result when it pays its first quarterly dividend it is typically pro-rated to account for the truncated quarter. That means the true growth (sequential or annual) should be calculated using the full amount that would have been paid if it had been a full quarter, not the pro-rated amount. Our computers don't know any better, but we do.

In fact, because so many MLPs went public last year, if you're tracking any of them you may have run into this already.

Let's have a look at what the computer thinks about the sequential distribution growth for some of 2013's fourth-quarter MLPs: Valero Energy Partners , Midcoast Energy Partners , ArcLogistics Partners , and Dynagas LNG Partners .

VLP Dividend data by YCharts

Now here's what we get if we look at the press releases for these four MLPs:

Source: Company press releases

Looks a bit different! None of these MLPs actually increased their distributions quarter over quarter, despite the fact that the computer shows us tremendous growth. In this case, the growth is so ridiculous that most of us could tell that something was up, imploring us to dig a little deeper, but that is not always the case.

Consider SunCoke Energy Partners for a moment. The partnership went public last January and has a full year of operations under its belt. The computer tells us that its year-over-year distribution growth looks like this:

SXCP Dividend data by YCharts

That's impressive, and while 60% distribution growth is not common, it's not so unbelievable that investors would second-guess it immediately. In reality though, SunCoke is posting 22% growth on an annual basis, once you account for its pro-rated distribution for the first quarter of 2013.

Bottom line
Twenty MLPs went public in 2013, which means from now until fourth quarter earnings come out in January and February, investors have to be careful with their distribution growth data. The bigger take away, of course, is that stock screeners and other data driven stock tools are great, but they're not infallible. Use them to find ideas, but make sure you are looking at company filings and press releases before you invest.

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

What: Shares of energy services company Emerge Energy Services LP fell 11% today after announcing a share sale.

So what: A little over 3.5 million common units are being sold by "certain selling unitholders" with an option for underwriters to sell another 527,307 in the next 30-days. The company will not get any proceeds and the number of shares outstanding won't change. The offer price of $109.06 per share was only 3% below yesterday's closing price but investors clearly didn't like a big owner selling shares.  

Now what: Insiders or large shareholders selling stock can be a bad sign for investors because they often know more information than the typical investor about the company's long-term prospects. While this doesn't change the investment thesis, it should at least give investors pause and make them reevaluate Emerge Energy. I wouldn't be a big buyer today because there's selling pressure on shares but keep an eye on what these sellers do now that shares are well below their offer price because if they're willing to sell at a significantly lower price it could be a bad sign.

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

What: Shares of midstream energy company Targa Resources Partners LP fell as much as 14% Friday after the company dismissed buyout rumors.

So what: Targa Resources' shares jumped Thursday on rumors that Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. was going to buy the company but Targa squashed those rumors today. In a release, the company said it had "preliminary discussions regarding a potential business combination" but those discussions have been terminated. 

Now what: The moves have been a bit jolting but shares are actually trading higher than they were at the close on Wednesday. Assuming the deal is indeed dead, I wouldn't be surprised to see shares fall back to that level, leaving about 5% more downside. There's really no reason to buy today but don't change your investment thesis either because the wild ride of the last two days doesn't really change the fundamental business Targa is in.

Is it time for Coca-Cola to finally buy Monster Beverage ? Despite the legal troubles that hover around the energy drink maker, an acquisition still makes sense as it could give a boost to declining soft drink sales, but valuations make the possibility of achieving a deal difficult to imagine.

These two companies have had interactions before, with Coca-Cola reportedly pursuing the possibility in 2012 but unable to actually pull the trigger. Certainly Coke is interested in making bolt-on acquisitions, as its willingness to spend more than $2 billion on a partnership with Keurig Green Mountain to develop branded at-home cold beverage machines suggests the beverage giant recognizes it badly needs to bolster flagging interest in carbonated soft drinks.

In 2007, Coke paid $4.2 billion to buy Vitaminwater, its biggest brand acquisition, and last year it acquired coconut water maker Zico, following the path it's setting again with Keurig of establishing a stake, acquiring a majority position, and then completing the takeover last November.

With worldwide sparkling beverage volumes down 1% in the first quarter, diet sodas remain under pressure and its once-favored Diet Coke is in free fall.

Source: Beverage Digest.

Coke already has extensive agreements in place with Monster for distribution, and it accounted for 29% of the energy drink maker's $2.59 billion in revenues in 2013. Monster reported a near-11% increase in net sales in the first quarter of the current year, generating a 50% increase in net income.

Energy drinks are also displacing soda on store shelves. Earlier this year it was expected that energy drinks would see shelf space in convenience stores expand by 50% to command over 30% of the total. So the growth Monster's experienced, even in the face of ongoing health concerns, means any offer would have to carry a hefty premium. Bloomberg estimates the company's sales will widen by 53% through 2017, surpassing every other beverage company in the U.S. valued at above $50 million, including PepsiCo and Dr Pepper Snapple..  

Although such growth should warrant hefty premiums, the cloud of lawsuits that follow the energy drink maker are worth considering. While two product liability cases are related to the deaths of two teens allegedly caused by excessive consumption of Monster drinks, the company is also facing charges of channel stuffing that extend all the way back to 2008 and probes over whether it improperly marketed its drinks to kids.

The question for Coke then becomes: If Monster can resolve its legal problems, is the price it would have to pay to acquire the energy drink maker's growth as a means of offsetting its own slack sales worth the price it would have to pony up? It just might be willing to do so, but it might not be alone in thinking Monster's a worthy brand to stick in a portfolio.

Anheuser-Busch InBev has also been a rumored candidate for taking over the drinks maker, and it is contending with sluggish growth of its own. If Coke were to continue delaying making a decision, it might be willing to step in. With its own distribution deals in place with Monster, it's another logical choice.

Monster Energy hasn't gotten any cheaper over the years after the various feints Coca-Cola's made at buying the company, and even with lawsuits pending, it doesn't seem like it's going to be much cheaper in the future. Coke may need to act sooner rather than later, all of which suggests that Monster, despite the 25% increase in the value of its shares over the past year, is still a good stock to own.

I recently wrote a Motley Fool article Why Investors Who Like Zillow Should Love CoStar Group, for investors interested in the fast growing real estate technology space. It was syndicated a few days before rumors and reports began circulating regarding Trulia, acquiring Move, , operator of Realtor.com.

My article concluded with an observation that CoStar Group  -- rather than Trulia -- would be a great marriage. Here is a quick chart that shows at a glance why Move, looks like a bargain for the other major players in this space:

recently pointed out that Trulia did not have much dry powder left after a debt offering used at least partially to fund the recent acquisition of Market Leader. On June 9, 2014 CoStar completed a common share offering raising $529 million which can be used for future acquisitions.

Coincidently, MOVE has a current market cap of $587 million.
CoStar has 2,040 employees, approximately double the number of Zillow, Trulia, or MOVE. CoStar seems to have all the bases covered to comfortably make an acquisition of this size.

5. No bad blood
Realtor.com was the first mover in this space. High flying newcomers Zillow and Trulia seem to have garnered much more attention of late. There has also been a lot of finger pointing by the National Association of Realtors, or NAR, and MOVE regarding the accuracy of information, particularly listings, on the other two sites.

Realtor.com gets accurate and timely information updated within minutes after it is received from more than 800 local Realtor multiple listing services, or MLS. Recently, several high profile executives have migrated from MOVE to both Trulia, and more notably Zillow. Lawsuits were filed. Clearly there has been some bad blood.

Investor Takeaway
Any purchase of Move would have to be contingent upon receiving all of the required approvals from the NAR board and the Realtors it represents. NAR also owns a block of MOVE shares of stock.

It certainly would appear that CoStar has the credentials, the cash, the infrastructure, and perhaps the respect of both NAR officers and rank and file members. Even more important is the fact that CoStar is not tarred by the same brush as Zillow and Trulia in the eyes of many real estate agents.

It would be a fresh start, and perhaps an ideal way for Realtor.com to leap ahead of the competition. I also think it would be an excellent opportunity to increase long-term shareholder value for CoStar Group investors. This combination could also represent a credible threat to both Trulia and Zillow moving forward.

Warren Buffett's biggest fear is about to come true
Warren Buffett just called this emerging technology a "real threat" to his biggest cash-cow. While Buffett shakes in his billionaire-boots, only a few investors are embracing this new market which experts say will be worth over $2 trillion. It won't be long before everyone on Wall Street wises up, that's why The Motley Fool is releasing this timely investor alert. Click here to learn more about what's keeping Buffett up at night and the one public company we're calling the "brains behind" the technology.

The article 5 Reasons CoStar Group, Inc. Trumps Trulia as Best Partner for Realtor.com originally appeared on Fool.com.

Bill Stoller has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends CoStar Group and Zillow. The Motley Fool owns shares of Zillow. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Copyright © 1995 - 2014 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Disney is inexplicably the worst performer on the Dow Jones Industrial Average today, falling 1% against the index's 0.15% gain in late trading.

There aren't any major market drivers today, but I'll note that West Texas Intermediate crude oil is once again up 1% to $107.42 per barrel as the U.S. economy improves and the conflict in Iraq continues. High energy prices could constrain expected economic growth in the second half of the year, particularly if that cost flows down to the gas pump.

Disney is down, not out
Investors may be eyeing those high gas prices as a reason to sell Disney today, but this is a stock long-term investors should love.

Disney's consumer goods products are icing on the cake for shareholders.

In the first calendar quarter of the year (Disney's second fiscal quarter), the company reported a 10% jump in revenue and a 30% increase in earnings per share to $1.08. In the past year, the company has earned $3.89 per share and is still gaining momentum in its three-pronged approach to dominating media.

The first key to success is the box office, where Frozen was a massive hit last year; coming up are Guardians of the Galaxy this summer and another Avengers film next year. Add the three remaining sequels to Star Wars and a multitude of spinoffs from both Marvel and Lucasfilm and you have a box office business that is firing on all cylinders.

ESPN and Disney's other television networks provide a steady stream of revenue and earnings, assisted by box office characters. Disney has also adopted streaming platforms more quickly than competitors, including Watch ESPN and Watch ABC apps.

Theme parks don't get as much attention as they deserve from investors, but they are Disney's second-largest business.

The beauty of building characters on the big and small screen is that Disney can then translate them into rides, shows, and games at theme parks, which are actually the company's second-largest business. Last quarter, parks and resorts revenue was up 8% -- and that's in a tough economy. Just imagine how Disney's theme parks will do if the economy picks up.

Disney's stock is trading at 21 times trailing earnings, which isn't cheap, but as I've outlined above the three-pronged approach of building successful characters and businesses at the box office, and through media networks, and then translating that to revenue at theme parks has been wildly successful. There's no indication that Disney is losing any steam on the character side, and if that's the case it will drive value down the chain for years to come. Disney's stock isn't doing well today, but this is no reason to panic and may even be a good day to pick up shares to hold for the long term.

GM's Renaissance building in Detroit. Source: General Motors.

In the latest string of events surrounding General Motors' massive recall debacle, America's largest automaker was slapped with a new lawsuit that could cost the company more than $10 billion. The lawsuit seeks compensation for as many as 15 million car and truck owners who stand to lose roughly $500-$2,600 in resale value due to the negative publicity surrounding GM's vehicles. Let's take a look at this lawsuit, assess the big picture, and find out what effect it could have on the once, and perhaps still, troubled automaker.

First things first
Right off the bat investors need to understand that General Motors may not have to pay a single dime because of this lawsuit. When General Motors emerged from bankruptcy in 2009, it essentially became a different business entity. One of the stipulations provides protection for "New" GM, from accidents cause during "Old" GM's era, its pre-bankruptcy days.

It's unclear exactly how this lawsuit will shake out, but you can guarantee General Motors will be using this defense to claim zero responsibility for owners demanding compensation for their vehicle's lost value. With that in mind, let's look at the big picture and see how it all relates to General Motors as an investment.

What else is there to consider?
What we know for sure is that General Motors will take at least a $2 billion charge, split between the first and second quarters, for costs associated with repairing the recalled vehicles. We also know that General Motors agreed to pay a maximum possible fine, from the U.S. Transportation Department's investigation, of $35 million.

While that $35 million fine is chump change for General Motors, a more significant charge could be imposed by the U.S. government -- though, GM might be able to avoid it entirely.

Several years after Toyota's recall of roughly 10 million vehicles, due to unintended acceleration problems, the Japanese automaker recently agreed to pay a $1.2 billion settlement with the U.S. government. The settlement was a result of an investigation that proved the Japanese automaker purposely misled U.S. consumers and regulators about the acceleration defects in its vehicles.

Currently, it's unclear whether the Justice Department can or would attempt to impose a similar charge on General Motors. Gross incompetence, which is so far all that has been proven, is different than criminal intent to mislead consumers about defects, or a cover-up of the situation altogether.

Just to be thorough, let's examine what it would look like for General Motors if it lost some of these major legal battles.

How bad could it possibly get?
Even in terms of a potential worst-case scenario, which would have General Motors hypothetically paying $10 billion to the lost resale value lawsuit, as well as a charge from the Justice Department -- take Toyota's recent settlement for $1.2 billion as an example -- the once-troubled automaker still wouldn't be brought to its knees because of its massive cash hoard -- although it would suffer a huge blow.

Consider that General Motors ended the first quarter with a staggering $27 billion in automotive cash and marketable securities. In addition to its huge cash pile, General Motors also has a very strong total automotive liquidity of $37.4 billion. On top of those factors, GM was categorized as investment grade by Moody's Investors Service last year and would be able to borrow large sums of money at lower interest rates if it needed spare cash to further fund its operations.

Ultimately, looking at GM's charge associated with the cost of repairs of $2 billion so far, it's realistic to think that General Motors could end up paying the same grand total for its massive recall debacle as Toyota did: roughly $3 billion. Investors and consumers alike will know more when General Motors begins to process victims' claims regarding the faulty ignition switches in early August. More details are likely to come from Kenneth Feinberg, who is behind the creation of a GM compensation fund and has the full authority to establish compensation levels.

What investors should watch
Surprisingly, car buyers and the American public have seemingly brushed off the bad headlines about the company's recall woes. Consider that even during these past five months, when the most negative attention arguably would've been focused on the automaker, General Motors' sales are up 13%. Furthermore, last month was the company's best May sales result in seven years, and it was GM's best total monthly performance since August 2008.

If a consumer backlash hasn't negatively affected GM's sales thus far, it's difficult to imagine a scenario that would send them plunging now. That said, it would still be wise for investors to keep an eye on sales over the next quarter as victims' claims are processed.

Unfortunately, recalls of autos for various defects are a part of business in the automotive industry. As long as you're a long-term shareholder willing to hold while all the dust settles, and believes in General Motors' ability to remain a global powerhouse automaker, the costs associated with this recall shouldn't be a reason to sell. But investors should keep abreast of new information that may be damaging to the automaker further. Toyota went through a similar recall saga in 2009 and 2010 and bounced back strongly -- there's no reason General Motors can't do the same.

tjx.com

Nothing is more annoying than watching a retailer blame the inclement weather for a poor quarter. This is often a ludicrous (yet convenient) excuse because stronger retailers will deliver strong results despite the poor weather. What's unique about TJX Companies is that the weather did drive its sub-par results. This will be proven below. If this angle is correct, then it could present an investment opportunity in a beaten down stock but an unbroken company -- which is what savvy investors like to see.

Quick update
TJX Companies delivered a solid net sales gain of 5% for its first quarter year over year. However, before you get too excited, this primarily resulted from new store openings. Between the company's two biggest brands -- T.J. Maxx and Marshalls -- the company opened 74 new stores. That's why it's better to look at comparable-store sales. In most cases, this pertains to sales at stores open for at least one year. For TJX Companies, it refers to stores open for at least two years. 

TJX Companies reported a comps gain of 1% for the quarter. This isn't thrilling, but given the current retail environment, it's not terrible, either. Value of average ticket improved, but traffic weakened due to weather.

Atmospheric pressure
Traffic weakened in the U.S. and Canada, but didn't weaken in Europe. That's the first hint that weather might have truly played a role in the company's first-quarter results. But a more telling clue is that domestic T.J. Maxx and Marshalls stores on the West Coast, in the Southwest, and in Florida outperformed stores in other regions. The West Coast, the Southwest, and Florida didn't suffer inclement weather this past winter. 

In other words, while there are no guarantees, don't be surprised if TJX Companies' stores show improved results in the second quarter. If you exclude the weather component, then TJX Companies is right where it needs to be as an off-price retailer offering significant discounts to today's (and likely future's) value-conscious consumers.

As an off-price retailer, TJX Companies sells quality products at 20%-60% off department store and specialty store prices. This format is appealing to today's consumers because it gives them an opportunity to purchase fashionable merchandise without paying full price. On top of that, the merchandise mix at TJX Companies changes rapidly. That being the case, a customer never knows what she is going to see the next time she enters the store. This, in turn, leads to repeat traffic and sales.

The changing merchandise mix has played a key role in the company's consistent profit margin improvements over the past five years, and consistent margin improvements is what long-term investors want to see. Also notice in the chart below that its biggest competitor and another off-price retailer with changing merchandise mix, Ross Stores (NASDAQ: ROST), has been even more impressive in this regard.

TJX Profit Margin (Annual) data by YCharts

Breaking down the 1% comps improvement, Marmaxx (T.J. Maxx + Marshalls) saw comps come in flat, HomeGoods delivered a 3% comps improvement (primarily thanks to an increased average ticket), TJX Canada's comps slid 1% (the Canadian dollar declined), and TJX Europe shot 8% higher (increased traffic and average ticket). Overall, diluted earnings-per-share increased 3%. Therefore, if you see the company's stock price suffering, then you might be looking at a long-term investment opportunity.

That said, the company's closest peer, Ross Stores has been driving earnings growth at a faster pace for years:

TJX EPS Diluted from Continuing Operations (TTM) data by YCharts

Before declaring Ross Stores the better investment option, let's look at some other comparisons.  

TJX Companies vs. Ross Stores
TJX Companies is currently trading at 19 times earnings, whereas Ross Stores is trading at 17 times earnings. This makes TJX Companies slightly more "expensive," but Foolish investors don't get caught up in splitting hairs. Another note is that both companies offer dividend yields of 1.2%, but this isn't significant, and it's a wash anyway.

Neither company has shown an ability to consistently drive free cash flow higher over the past several years, but both companies do consistently drive positive free cash flow:

TJX Free Cash Flow (Annual) data by YCharts

In addition to total free cash created, it's important to consider how efficiently a business converts sales into profits. A good way to determine efficiency is to see if a company's top line is outpacing its selling, general, and administrative expenses. TJX Companies has managed to deliver in this regard over the past five years, but only by a hair:

TJX Revenue (TTM) data by YCharts

Now compare that to the efficiency of Ross Stores:

ROST Revenue (TTM) data by YCharts

This is a much wider and more consistent gap, which is what investors want to see. As TJX Companies has kept expenses in check related to top-line growth, Ross Stores CEO Michael Balmuth, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, recently stated that the company has been "focused on strict inventory and expense controls."  l 

The Foolish conclusion
As off-price retailers, TJX Companies and Ross Stores are both in line with consumer trends by targeting the value-conscious consumer, but Ross Stores has been moderately more efficient over the past several years. That said, the sub-par first-quarter results of TJX Companies might relate to inclement weather, which would present an opportunity to invest in an unfairly punished company. Over the long haul, it would be difficult to go wrong with either TJX Companies or Ross Stores.

According to Bloomberg, Energy Transfer Partners and Energy Transfer Equity were close to a $15 billion deal to acquire a rival MLP. While that deal has apparently now fallen apart, we shouldn't expect Energy Transfer Partners to give up on deal-making anytime soon.

Transformation continues
Since 2011, Energy Transfer Partners has spent $16 billion on acquisitions and organic growth projects. As the following slide points out, these investments have really diversified and grown profits since 2009.

Source: Energy Transfer Partners Investor Presentation (link opens a PDF). 

While the company has completed a number of notable organic growth projects, the bulk of its growth has come by way of acquisitions. In fact, according to Bloomberg, Energy Transfer Partners has completed $13 billion in acquisitions from 2010 to 2011 alone as it transformed its business into a more diversified energy powerhouse.

That being said, more recently, the company has spent its time digesting those deals and completing organic growth projects. Its only recent deal of note was competed earlier this year when Energy Transfer Partners announced a small $1.8 billion deal to bulk up its gas station business. While that was a smart deal for the company, as it provided it with a vehicle to monetize its own retail segment, it's rather small for a company of Energy Transfer Partners' size.

Ready to restart its acquisition machine
CEO Kelcy Warren predicted late last year that merger and acquisition activity in the energy infrastructure segment would ramp up. He noted that smaller geographically focused rivals were struggling to compete against railroads and larger rivals for market share, which would add to deal volume.

His prediction is beginning to unfold as he just watched one of his rivals announce a $6 billion deal that was the first step to creating a $100 billion energy giant. That deal could be the one that jump-starts the next wave of acquisitions.

Further, a new catalyst is beginning to emerge in the energy infrastructure segment that should spur more deals. As American energy production surges, it's creating opportunities for infrastructure companies like Energy Transfer Partners to begin to capitalize on energy exports. As the following slide notes, the company is already uniquely positioned to capitalize on the growing American energy export story.

Source: Energy Transfer Partners.

Not surprisingly, one of the assets of Energy Transfer Partners' rumored acquisition target was an energy export facility along the Gulf Coast. Given Energy Transfer Partners' strong position in the Gulf, increasing its ability to export energy from the region has appeal. That's why we'll likely see the company continue to pursue acquisition opportunities that have additional upside to energy exports.

Investor takeaway
While Energy Transfer Partners' rumored deal for a smaller rival is said to have fallen apart, that roadblock won't end the company's desire to continue acquiring. The company is certainly still on the prowl for its next deal as it continues its transformation to a diversified energy powerhouse. That's why it wouldn't be all that surprising to see the company announce a big deal before the year is done, with a likely target being a company with assets in the Gulf Coast that can enhance Energy Transfer Partners' ability to export energy as that story begins to unfold. 

MichaelKors.com

So, you missed the boat on Michael Kors Holdings  If so, then you might be hanging your head, but there's actually no reason to feel down. There is a common misconception among investors that they "missed it." The truth for many is that the winners keep winning, and Michael Kors is still in the early stages of its winning trend.

In addition to consistently deliver strong domestic results, the company is now looking to increase its international exposure. But even if you just look domestically, it would be difficult to find another lifestyle-products company that's more on trend. Wait until you see some of the numbers and projections below.

Big hints at future performance
One of the first things Michael Kors states in its 10-Q filing is that it's "rapidly growing." This isn't something you often find in an SEC filing. These filings are meant to be objective and factual, and that's the case here. Michael Kors wasn't attempting to sell anyone by referring to itself as rapidly growing. It was stating a fact.

Another hint at the likelihood of impressive future performance is that it increased its full-price retail store count and outlet store count by 38.8% and 22.3%, respectively, for fiscal-year 2015 (year over year). An increase in store count alone doesn't promise strong future performance, but such significant store count increases show that the company is highly confident in its future prospects. 

A third hint at the likelihood of future success is the company's outlook for fiscal-year 2015. Comps sales (sales at stores open at least one year) are expected to increase in the high teens (percentage-wise), and diluted earnings per share are expected to come in at $3.85-$3.91 compared to $3.22 in fiscal-year 2014.

To get a better idea of the dominance of Michael Kors, consider some key comparisons.

High and above
Comps sales growth is the key to retail, but revenue still plays a big role. Even though new store openings can skew what's really taking place, a retailer won't open a lot of new stores unless it fully expects them to succeed. With that in mind, consider how Michael Kors has performed compared to other lifestyle-product companies Ralph Lauren and Coach  on the top line over the past five years:

Michael Kors revenue (trailing-12 months) data by YCharts

You're probably thinking that revenue means nothing without net income growth. You're correct. That's why the chart below is also imperative for these comparisons:

Michael Kors net income (trailing-12 months) data by YCharts

Michael Kors is currently trading at 29 times earnings, making it moderately more expensive than Ralph Lauren and Coach; but given the comparisons above, it looks like paying a premium for Michael Kors would be more than justifiable. However, if you're a dividend investor, then you might prefer Ralph Lauren or Coach, with current yields of 1.2% and 3.4%, respectively. Michael Kors doesn't pay a dividend, which makes sense given its substantial growth potential.

Exceptional results
In the fourth quarter, Michael Kors delivered a revenue gain of 53.6%, a comps gain of 26.2%, and diluted earnings-per-share improvement of 56% year over year. All three segments -- retail, wholesale, and licensing -- delivered significant net sales gains: 49.7%, 55.5%, and 79.1%, respectively.

If you break the quarter down geographically, North America revenue increased 43%, with comps popping 20.6%. This was primarily thanks to strength in accessories and watches in retail and strength in footwear and shop-in-shop locations in department stores in wholesale. In Europe, revenue skyrocketed 125%, with comps shooting 62.7% higher. This was primarily due to increased brand awareness.

The numbers above should be exciting to any investor. In addition to the likelihood of continued strength in the U.S. and Europe, Michael Kors plans to increase its global presence in non-established international markets. Given the success and momentum already seen by Michael Kors in established markets, you can only image the growth potential.

The Foolish bottom line
If you're looking to invest in a lifestyle-products brand, then you will be hard-pressed to find a better option than Michael Kors. When investing, it's best to go with what's working and stick with it until it doesn't work anymore. In the case of Michael Kors, there should be a very long runway ahead, perhaps not just years but decades before another brand comes along and steals its thunder.

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

What: Shares of offshore drilling company Hercules Offshore, fell 12% today after announcing it will forgo a contract.

So what: Hercules experienced delays obtaining approval of a local representative, which delayed a three-year contract it had in Angola. The contract Hercules is getting out of was for $108,000 to $110,000 per day through November of 2016.  

Now what: This is a big blow for Hercules but it wasn't the most valuable or longest lasting contract for the fleet. So, the drop in shares is a bit overdone, in my opinion, considering that this is only one rig in the fleet. Hercules may be dinged by this on an earnings front this year but with operations already returning to profitability I see more upside in drilling overall than downside from the lost contract.

In today's "Where The Money Is" mailbag, Motley Fool energy analysts Taylor Muckerman and Joel South answer an investor who asks: Do you have an opinion on Oceaneering International ?

Oceaneering International is a "picks and shovels" investment in deepwater drilling: rather than investing in any particular drill site, you're buying into a company that rents drilling equipment. This can make it a safer investment, since you're not worried about the returns of any particular play -- and with deepwater drilling expanding, it can be a good entrance to a profitable niche. But could there be a better investment in this space?

New home sales fell off a cliff during the recession but are slowly starting to pick up again. While big players like DR Horton are the industry's news catchers, the sector is filled with smaller private participants. Newly listed United Development Funding IV opens the door to this "private" club.

A painful downturn
The trend in new home sales was nothing short of impressive in the early to-mid 2000s. Higher highs and higher lows drove record sales at builders like DR Horton. However, the deep 2007 to 2009 financial-led recession put a swift end to that.

New homes sales plummeted from their March 2005 peak of nearly 130,000 homes to a November 2010 low of 20,000 homes. That's a difference of over 100,000 homes and helps explain why DR Horton's earnings peaked at over $4.60 a share in 2005 and hit bottom in 2008 at a loss of over $8.30 a share.

DR Horton's business has improved notably since that nadir. Last year the company earned over $1.30 a share. Although that was down from 2012's tally, 2013 marked the third consecutive year of increasing sales. In fact, in the first quarter, DR Horton's, "backlog increased 18% in value to $2.8 billion and 5% in homes to 10,059."

Perhaps new home sales will never reach those impressive heights again. But April's industrywide sales figure of 41,000 homes is just 30% or so of the high, suggesting that there's likely to be plenty more upside. And DR Horton isn't sitting still, it's buying its way to a bigger piece of the growing housing pie.

More than the big boys
In May DR Horton paid $420 million for Atlanta's Crown Communities. That bought DR Horton a backlog of 420 homes sales, inventory of 640 homes, and 2,350 lots for future construction. Comparing that backlog to DR Horton's shows that Crown is a relatively small player. But $420 million isn't chump change, this was a sizable operation on an absolute basis.

Clearly the new home industry is much broader than just giants like DR Horton. And historically there would be no way for you to invest in the relative small fry. The public listing of United Home Development Funding IV, however, changes that dynamic in a big way.

This newly public mortgage real estate investment trust (REIT) started life as a non-traded REIT in 2008. Since that time, it has originated or purchased 149 loans. United Development Funding IV focuses on providing home builders with the money they need to take advantage of the housing recovery.

(Source: John Shea, via Wikimedia Commons)

Why not go to a bank?
United Development Funding IV's CEO Hollis Greenlaw explains that, "The housing market continues to strengthen, and capital for residential development continues to be a challenge." He believes that, "We are still in the early stages of a housing recovery, and UDF IV will continue to be an important capital solution for regional homebuilders and developers."

Although Crown Communities is no longer private, it is exactly the type of builder Greenlaw is talking about. Not big enough to tap the capital markets, but fighting the long memory that banks often have when it comes to stinging losses. So United Development Funding IV is tapping the capital markets and using that cash to fund private builders.

Although virtually all of its loans are to Texas developers today (roughly two-thirds are to developers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area), it has plans to expand into Florida and North Carolina. It's also looking into opportunities in Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, and California. Still, it's important to keep in mind the portfolio's tight regional focus.

Despite that concentration risk, United Development Funding IV's average loan size is relatively small at $4.5 million. And the average term is relatively short at less than three years. With the upturn only just starting to take shape, the REIT likely has plenty of time to diversify. And the fact that it has 120 loans in its portfolio in basically one state shows just how much opportunity there is to grow in new markets.

Not for the risk averse
At this point, United Development Funding IV is a relatively high-risk play on a continued housing upturn. However, as the portfolio matures, that risk will subside somewhat. It's worth watching this new mortgage REIT if you like the new home market but don't want to own a home builder.

Source: Coach.

Handbag and accessories retailer Coach is going through a remarkably challenging period, hurt by declining sales and increased market-share competition from Michael Kors and Kate Spade . After falling more than 35% year to date, the stock is in the bargain bin. Is Coach a buying opportunity for smart shoppers, or should you stay away from this damaged merchandise?

On sale
Adding to Coach's challenges, the stock fell by almost 9% on Thursday after management announced in a meeting with analysts that it would close 70 underperforming stores over the next year. Coach expects revenue to fall by low double digits during the fiscal year ending in June 2015, while comparable sales in the U.S. are forecast to decline by the high teens.

Coach does not expect any quick turnaround in performance, and this is understandably a reason for concern among investors. On the other hand, management is doing the right thing in trying to set expectations at achievable levels. For a company in this situation, it's far better to underpromise and overdeliver than to create unwarranted hope among analysts.

Besides, not everything is bad news for Coach lately. The company is performing remarkably well in international markets, where sales increased 14% to $441 million during the first quarter of the year. Sales in China increased by a strong 25% during the quarter, and management estimates the business is on track to generate more than $540 million in sales in the country during 2014.

Coach is making a big bet on its renewed collection from Creative Director Stuart Vevers, which is due to reach stores in September. During the earnings call, CEO Victor Luis said, "The collection got a significant attention and the global press was uniformly positive bringing Coach into the fashion conversation."

The situation could materially change if Coach can position itself as a trendy and desirable brand once again. Even if it takes some time for an improved merchandising strategy to be reflected in better financial performance, winning customers back with a successful new collection could be the first step to leaving the company's problems in the past.

Competitive pressure: Coach vs. Michael Kors and Kate Spade
Michael Kors' success has been explosive in the last few years as the company has positioned itself as one of the most demanded brands in the industry, and recent financial reports suggest there is no slowdown in sight.

Kors announced a 53.6% increase in revenue during the first quarter of 2014, reaching $917.5 million. Sales were strong across different segments and geographies: retail sales grew 49.7% to $408.4 million, wholesale sales jumped 55.5% to $473.7 million, and licensing revenue increased 79.1% to $35.4 million.

Sales in North America grew 43% versus the prior year, on the back of a 20.6% increase in comparable-store revenue. Europe was an even stronger market for Michael Kors, with a 125% increase in revenue during the quarter and an increase of 62.7% in comparable-store sales.

Kate Spade is materially smaller than both Coach and Michael Kors, but the company has gone through an impressive transformation, disposing of other brands so it can better focus on its leading Kate Spade name. 

Total sales from continuing operations reached $328 million during the first quarter of 2014, an increase of 33.5% versus the same period in the prior year. Kate Spade brand revenue increased 54% to $217 million during the quarter, so both Coach and Michael Kors will probably be facing increased competition from Kate Spade over the medium term.

Foolish takeaway
Falling sales in the U.S. and competitive pressure from Michael Kors and Kate Spade are serious headwinds for Coach. But there are also some reasons for hope. Nobody expects a quick turnaround at this stage, but the business is still performing soundly in international markets and management is optimistic about the company's renewed fall collection.

The smart thing to do is to see how the company's new collection resonates among customers before making an investment decision, as this could be a major inflection point for Coach in the medium term.

Source: CarMax.

CarMax was rising by an explosive 16.5% on Friday after reporting remarkably strong financial performance for the quarter ended on May 31. The business is truly firing on all cylinders, and the company's differentiated business model has allowed it to outperform competitors such as AutoNation and Penske in the long term. Should you buy CarMax?

Running at full speed
Total sales and operating revenues during the first quarter of fiscal 2014 increased 13.3% to $3.75 billion; this came in materially above analyst's forecasts of $3.58 billion for the quarter.

Performance was strong across the board: Total used-vehicle unit sales grew 9.8% during the period, while comparable-store used unit sales increased by 3.4%. Wholesale vehicle unit sales grew 9.9% versus the first quarter of fiscal 2013, and income from CarMax Auto Finance -- CAF -- increased by 8.7% during the quarter.

Total gross profit increased 12% to $501.7 million. Used-vehicle gross profit rose 9.9% on the back of growing unit sales, while gross profit per unit remained in line with the first quarter in 2013. Wholesale vehicle gross profit increased 17.5%, driven by a 9.9% increase in wholesale unit sales and an improvement of 6.8% in wholesale vehicle gross profit per unit. 

Earnings per share increased 18.8% year over year to $0.76 per share, considerably above estimations of $0.67 per share from Wall Street analysts.

The company opened four new stores during the quarter, three in new markets for CarMax: Rochester, New York; Dothan, Alabama; and Spokane, Washington; and one new store in an existing market: Harrisburg/Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In addition, CarMax opened a new store in Madison, Wisconsin, after the quarter ended.

In addition to increased traffic at the company's stores as a major growth driver during the quarter, management highlighted the fact that online performance was remarkably sound. Average monthly Web visits grew to over 14 million, up 25% compared to the same period last year. Approximately 30% of total visits were to the company's mobile site.

Competitive strengths
CarMax is quite a unique player in the auto dealership industry. The company applies a customer-friendly commercial policy that resonates remarkably well among clients. CarMax has a no-haggle pricing policy, which makes the negotiation process much simpler and more comfortable. Besides, the process is also more transparent than at competing companies; the price of the car the customer is buying does not change depending on factors like vehicle trade-ins.

Sales employees at CarMax work on a fixed commission, meaning their commission does not change depending on which vehicle the customer buys. This means they can focus on finding the best vehicle according to a customer's needs, as opposed to pushing the cars that generate higher sales commissions.

This is generating strong performance on the competitive front, as CarMax has materially outgrown competitors such as AutoNation and Penske over the last several years. 

KMX Revenue (TTM) data by YCharts.

Importantly, both AutoNation and Penske are delivering solid financial performance lately, which is indicating that industry demand remains encouragingly solid. 

AutoNation delivered healthy numbers for the first quarter of 2014, as total sales increased 6.5% to $4.36 billion. New vehicle units sales grew 6.1% to 71,223 units during the quarter, while used vehicle units sales increased by 3.2% to 52,136.

May sales data from AutoNation was even more encouraging: The company announced retail sales of 30,275 new vehicles during the month, an increase of 15% compared to the same month of 2013. On a same-store basis, reported retail new vehicle unit sales in May were 29,471, an increase of 12%.

In comparison to CarMax or AutoNation, Penske tends to be more volatile in its financial performance, but the company delivered impressive growth rates for the first quarter of 2014. Penske announced a big increase of 20.9% in total revenues to $4 billion during the quarter, driven by a 13.1% increase in total retail unit sales, including a 9.9% increase on a same-store basis.

Reports from AutoNation and Penske show that demand is remarkably strong in the industry, and this is a big positive factor for CarMax and other companies in the business, since performance at the company-specific level is usually quite tied to industry conditions.

Foolish takeaway
CarMax delivered remarkable financial performance during the last quarter, and reports from competitors such as AutoNation and Penske confirm that demand is healthy across the industry. CarMax has proven its ability to outperform competitors in the long term thanks to its differentiated business strategy, so this unique car dealership looks well positioned to continue delivering solid gains in the years ahead.

The stock market has been rising sharply in recent weeks, sending both the Dow Jones Industrials and the S&P 500 to record heights. For the most part, favorable economic data have been the primary culprit for recent gains. But next week, the Dow's earnings season kicks off when Nike issues its report, to be followed by a flood of releases in following weeks. With that in mind, here are three things that investors in the Dow Jones Industrials and the S&P 500 should pay attention to as earnings season approaches.

1. Big players can skew results for an entire industry
Often, you'll see sector-wide pronouncements about earnings growth for a particular industry. Before you assume that those conclusions apply to every company within that industry, look at the methodology used to establish sector growth rates.

For instance, as a recent FactSet Research report showed, analysts expect the telecommunications sector to be the best-performing industry in the S&P 500, with earnings growth of almost 23%. But all of that growth is attributable to Dow telecom giant Verizon Communications . Take out Verizon's influence, and telecom earnings acually shrink by almost 7%. Similarly, financial stocks are expected to bounce back sharply in the second half of 2014 compared to slight declines in the first half. But JPMorgan Chase is the outlier in this group, with second-half earnings per share seen more than doubling from the year-ago figure and accounting for about 40% of the growth rate for financials broadly.

Image source: Flickr.

2. Don't expect lowballed earnings reports this quarter
Traditionally, stock analysts tend to reduce their growth estimates in the months before earnings season starts, and then the actual results turn out to be better than those pessimistic projections. This time around, though, analysts seem to have stopped trying to use that trick, as downward revisions to earnings estimates have been minimal.

Specifically, since the end of March, the estimated overall earnings growth rate has slid from 6.8% to 5.2%. That's the smallest markdown in three years, and means that companies will have more trouble beating expectations than they have in the past. That doesn't mean growth will evaporate, but it does suggest that the positive reaction from growth could be more muted than usual.

3. Prepare for a topsy-turvy season
Not all industries are equally healthy, and that means you could see some whipsawing in investor sentiment, especially within the Dow Jones Industrials. After Nike, the Dow's banking stocks are typically the next to report, and with expectations for financials to suffer another year-over-year quarterly drop in earnings -- the only sector to do so -- Dow investors could start the season off on a negative note. That bad news could send the Dow stumbling temporarily, until better-performing sectors report and provide another perspective on earnings season.

Earnings season is a valuable way to gauge the success of the companies in your portfolio. For now, investors appear optimistic about the prospects for a solid second-quarter Dow earnings season -- albeit with inevitable bumps in the road.

Lincoln's MKZ Hybrid is one vehicle for which Ford is writing checks to consumers. Source: Ford Motor Company

America's No. 2 automaker, Ford , could be writing you a check shortly if you drive one of its vehicles. Sounds great, right?

Of course not, you know better. If Ford ends up writing you a check in an amount between $125 and $1,050, it's because your vehicle's miles-per-gallon rating hasn't been measuring up to its promise. Let's take a look at which vehicles' mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency has been overstated and the potential effects this could have on Ford's image and sales.

What happened?
There are many tests that go into estimating a vehicle's fuel-economy rating. Those tests include vehicle-specific resistance testing on a dynamometer, wind tunnel testing, and track tests. Ultimately, some of Ford's internal tests led to an error that overstated certain vehicle models' miles per gallon ratings, which weren't matched by those models in the real world.

How bad is it really?
You might remember a similar incident happened with Ford late last year when an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency found that Ford's C-Max vehicle's miles per gallon rating was overstated. Ford mailed out rebate checks in the amount of $550 to owners of the model, but this recent incident looks to be a bigger problem.

The affected Ford models include the 2014 Fiesta, as well as 2013-2014 hybrid versions of the C-MAX, Fusion, and MKZ. The overstated miles-per-gallon even extends to the plug-in hybrid version of the 2013-2014 C-MAX and Fusion Energi.

All in all, Ford estimates that roughly 200,000 of these vehicles have been sold or leased to customers in the United States. If you're one of those customers and are interested in how large of a check Ford will be writing you, look here.

Will this hurt Ford?
Ford is often touted as the public's favored automaker, after it avoided a taxpayer fueled bankruptcy -- unlike its crosstown rivals Chrysler and General Motors -- but what impact might this have on Ford's image and sales?

It is a bit of an embarrassment for the folks at the Blue Oval, to be sure. Ultimately though, this isn't going to have any measurable effect on the company's brand image; these mistakes happen.

"Ford isn't the first manufacturer to admit that it was optimistic in its EPA fuel economy ratings, and it might not be the last," said Jack R. Nerad, editorial director at Kelley Blue Book told Reuters.

In terms of financial implications, the worst-case scenario would be that every single one of the 200,000 vehicles in this scenario was a purchased, rather than leased, Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. In that scenario Ford would be writing checks that combine for a total cost of $210 million. That might sound like a lot, but for context, Ford earned a pre-tax profit of $8.6 billion in 2013.

So, with no severe negative effects on Ford's image or financials evident, Ford's in the clear, right? Not exactly: The biggest negative impact will be felt in continuing sales of the vehicles under scrutiny.

Fuel economy continues to be one of the most important factors in a potential car buyer's decision to purchase. Any mistakes estimating those miles per gallon will have a negative impact on sales, just as it did when Ford lowered fuel economy estimates on its C-MAX. These mistakes could, as Fool.com senior auto analyst John Rosevear points out, make claims in earlier commercial ads worthless.

Consider that the revisions to the estimates are pretty significant for the Hybrid versions of the effected vehicles. Lincoln's 2013-2014 MKZ Hybrid goes from a combined city and highway rating of 45 miles per gallon down to 38. Ford's 2013-2014 Fusion Hybrid moves from 47 combined miles per gallon down to 42. It's worth noting that both of those hybrids have been exceeding Ford's sales expectations, and likely will feel a negative impact on sales.

All things considered, life will continue much the same for Ford and its investors -- though, some consumers might be wondering if their checks are worth their rides' disappointing fuel efficiency.

It may be controversial, it may be volatile, but one thing SolarCity  certainly is not is unambitious.

With an industry-leading 32% market share of the U.S. residential rooftop market, SolarCity now wants a slice of the solar panel market as well.

The solar finance company recently announced that it will acquire Silevo, a company that makes high efficiency solar panels, for $200 million in stock and potentially an additional $150 million in performance earn outs.

Silevo manufactures solar panels with a cell efficiency of approximately 21%, or roughly the same as that of industry leader SunPower's , for about the same production cost as that of other top solar panel makers.

The acquisition will make SolarCity vertically integrated like industry leaders SunPower and First Solar . 

The market liked the news and sent SolarCity stock rallying over 17%.

Market applause for a potential game-changer
With the rally, the market is voting that the acquisition is a brilliant move by SolarCity.

If done well, the acquisition could indeed be a game changer for the company. By becoming vertically integrated, SolarCity will have a new sector in the gigantic global solar panel market to grow into. With the right R&D, Silevo's solar panels could also be the crucial ingredient that differentiates SolarCity from other rooftop solar installers/financiers. It could provide SolarCity with a technology moat that so many detractors say the company lacks.

With its plan to build a solar panel factory with 1 gigawatt of annual capacity in New York in two years and factories with potentially as much as 10 gigawatts of annual capacity in the following years, Silevo will also put SolarCity in the big leagues in terms of solar panel production. 

To put 10 gigawatts of annual capacity in perspective, the global PV solar panel market is only expected to be 54 gigawatts in 2015 and 118 gigawatts in 2020.   

Lastly, the acquisition should also cushion SolarCity from the negative impact of recent U.S. duties on Chinese solar panel imports.

The bottom line
Up to this point, SolarCity management has executed beyond most analyst expectations in terms of gaining market share and containing costs. It remains unclear, however, whether management can do the same in the solar panel market, where the gross margins are lower and the competition is tougher. 

Producing solar panels efficiently and cost effectively is radically different from installing solar panels on rooftops and lining up solar financing. If actual solar panel demand does not meet expectations, the acquisition could also potentially expose SolarCity to industry oversupply.

That being said, with the acquisition of Silevo, SolarCity is showing that it is willing to do whatever it takes to succeed. In a recent blog post, SolarCity said it may do further acquisitions down the road to ensure clear technology leadership. With a market capitalization of over $6 billion, SolarCity certainly has enough currency to fulfill its ambitious goal of accelerating mass adoption of sustainable energy for all.