This article was written by Oilprice.com -- the leading provider of energy news in the world. Also c heck out this recent article:

•   Why I Love Tesla, but Dislike TSLA

While I have been negative about the long-term prospects of Apple's iPod Touch (long term, it could very well vanish), the reality is that if Apple simply gave this product a bit more tender loving care, the sales -- for at least as long as this product category remains viable -- would probably improve.

Interestingly enough, the company did a couple of things to bolster its iPod Touch lineup the other day. In case you missed the news, here's what happened:

• Apple introduced a 16 GB iPod Touch with both front and rear cameras. (The prior version had a front camera only.)
• Apple cut prices of the 16 GB, 32 GB, and 64 GB models from $229, $299, and $399 to $199, $249, and $299, respectively.

With this latest move, Apple makes the current lineup much more palatable, although the value proposition still seems a bit weak for the hardware that the company offers. A Nexus 5 phone, for example, with high-end hardware costs just $349 off contract. The good news, though, is that with just a modest bump in hardware, the iPod Touch line at these new prices could be quite viable.

iOS is so good that it masks weak iPod hardware
The current-generation iPod Touch sports the following hardware specifications:

Source: Wikipedia.

ARM Holdings' Cortex A9 is a pretty old processor core, and at 1 GHz it's not exactly the fastest available implementation of that core. Frankly, the A5 chip is a bit long in the tooth.

If you use the latest iPod Touch, you'll probably notice that although it is surprisingly fast for such old hardware (iOS is incredibly efficient), it could really benefit from a faster processor and more RAM.

Upgrading this is easy
The bad news is that the current iPod Touch really needs a faster processor and more memory. The good news is that this is probably the easiest, most straightforward upgrade that Apple could do. Though it'd be amazing if Apple could bring in the A7, further speeding up adoption of 64-bit software across Apple's platforms, the A6 chip is still extremely formidable and would run iOS 8 without a hitch.

Will this solve the iPod's sales problems? Not entirely.
With all of that in mind, while faster internals would dramatically improve the value proposition of the iPod Touch, it wouldn't change the fundamental problem that iPhone adoption necessarily eats into the iPod Touch total addressable market.

However, for folks interested in buying what is essentially a mini-iPad Mini, such an upgrade would be perfect and would serve -- at the very least -- as a stepping stone to eventual iPhone purchases.

Foolish bottom line
It's not surprising that Apple has neglected the iPod Touch since the most recent update in September 2012 -- the iPod is a market in secular decline, and the iPod Touch is no exception. However, every little bit helps, and the more accessible Apple's ecosystem is, the more likely it is that customers starting out with an iPod Touch could eventually be iPhone, iPad, and Mac buyers.

Eli Lilly  has one of the largest dividends in health care, but does that make it one of the sector's top dividend stocks? 

In this video, Motley Fool Healthcare analyst David Williamson will be grading well known dividend stocks using a World Cup inspired grading system: a yellow card is a warning for investors, a red card is an ejection, and a "goal" happens if the stock looks like a winner. 

Google's  recent I/O conference saw the company expand into new areas and it  released a slew of updates for traditional products, particularly Android software. The I/O conference is an important tool in creating the necessary buzz, and this year Google was quick to draw lines in the sand. This is good news for the continuing vitality of Google, but it also pits the company more directly against its rivals, particularly Apple  and Amazon.com .

Health for the masses
Look out, Apple: This was a frequent message at the Google conference, which set the two companies even more at odds. Google Fit , in particular, is a new platform designed for use in a number of different fitness wearables, allowing people to unify their workout data in more innovative ways. If this sounds familiar, that's because Apple announced an identical service at its own conference this year, called HealthKit. Google is working with Adidas, Nike, and RunKeeper, while Apple has announced partnerships  with Mayo Clinic, Epic, FitBit, iHealth, Wahoo Fitness, and Nike (who appears to be working with both sides).

Apple stock moved from above $92 to around $91 in the aftermath of the Google conference, but investors do not seem that dismayed. On the contrary, some are looking forward to the expected September release of the iPhone 6  to give the stock a new boost. However, if Apple is preparing to make HealthKit an integral part of its latest hardware, be aware that it will have some serious competition on that front.

Moving ahead with car tech
One of the Android updates Google provided was Android Auto , a platform for car tech with a focus on voice controls, messaging, and Android apps. Spotify and Songza were both mentioned as current partners, and apps like Google Maps were given extra attention. Again, if this sounds familiar, that's because Apple recently announced its own version of the same product, called CarPlay , which does similar things with iPhone apps but without the voice commands or full operating system support.

In other words, if Apple was hoping to have this market to itself, Google has officially broken the bad news (and Microsoft has released a "Windows in the Car " demo of its own). It will be interesting to see which technology catches on first, and how much it will be influenced by brand preferences. Google's more flexible platform certainly has its advantages. Wired has an interesting piece comparing which companies have partnered with Android Auto vs. CarPlay thus far, and Android seems to have the lion's share.

To the TV
Android TV is trying to do with TVs what Android Auto is attempting with cars -- a new platform that can help users interact with the TV  from other Android devices like smartphones. The company is also including the ability to stream video games and play them via a controller. Google Play will be getting its own Android TV section by the end of 2014, and Google's work in this area may even lead to a new set-top box or next-generation Chromecast.

This brings to mind Amazon's set top box, Fire TV, which also includes a focus on games and the ability to stream content. Of course, Android TV is just software for now, while Fire TV is actually a media streamer, but they accomplish very similar things -- and Android users do not need to pay extra for the hardware. Remember, Amazon stock has fallen by around 20% this year as too-high valuation fears have been realized. Comparison to Google services could prove another reality check.

Fingers in the pies
While Apple and Amazon stood out as clear rivals after I/O, Google also set its sights on a number of other companies. Dropbox and Microsoft come to mind, with Google's updated version of Google Drive that offers new enterprise packages and features that render other cloud services less necessary. But the important takeaway here is that the tech giant is not afraid to continue its diversification into all areas of the industry. Big or small, tech companies should be ready for Google to start casting a shadow.

Lululemon Athletica has had its share of problems as of late. First, the high-end yoga-wear retailer dealt with the debacle that featured the company's founder and former CEO Chip Wilson saying that Lululemon's pants "don't work for some women" because of their weight and large frames. Then, the company, which is known for its high-quality products, had to recall a line of yoga pants because their material was so sheer that they were practically "see-through."

Shareholders want the company to focus on spreading its active-lifestyle message and growing its brand -- not dealing with product-quality issues and negative publicity. However, despite these issues and the added problems associated with finding a third CEO in just a few years, shareholders don't need to worry about one thing -- Lululemon's balance sheet.

Lululemon is definitely balanced
Simply put, a balance sheet lists a company's assets, liabilities, and shareholder's equity for a given period. A company owns assets in order to conduct its operations, and it owes liabilities to creditors. Whatever is left over after subtracting liabilities from assets is what shareholders can claim in a sale or liquidation -- shareholder's equity.

Looking at a balance sheet can tell you a lot about a company. It can tell you the health of the business, its bankruptcy risk, and provide numerous other insights. While it doesn't happen often, if a business is doing poorly and losing money, the balance sheet will look worse and worse as creditors keep piling up. This is bad for shareholders because the company must first pay all of its expenses before investors get anything.

Yoga balancing act
Lululemon's balance sheet is nothing short of perfection. Investors can say what they want about the company, its growth plans, and its CEO, but the one thing they cannot complain about is the company's balance sheet.

Lululemon Annual Balance Sheets

Lululemon clearly has the financial strength to handle its current problems. It uses no long-term debt (debt that expires in a year or more), and only has liabilities because of accounts payable for inventories. What is also interesting about Lululemon's balance sheet is that the company has an unusually large cash balance. In fact, the company's cash stood, as of Feb. 2, 2014, at 55.89% of its total assets. This might be why the company just announced a $450 million share buyback program. It doesn't appear to need the money, and its cash balance will continue to go up and up as time goes on.

Further proof
Investors can find even more proof for just how great Lululemon is doing financially by looking at the balance sheets of strong fashion brands Michael Kors Holdings and The Gap .

Latest Annual Balance Sheets

Michael Kors appears to be almost as strong financially as Lululemon, which isn't surprising because it, too, is a specialty fashion brand with extremely loyal customers. The Gap, on the other hand, could learn a few things from Lululemon. The Gap's "Athleta" brand directly competes with Lululemon for sales in yoga-wear and accessories. The Gap likely created this high-end athletic brand because it saw the financial strength that Lululemon's business has earned for its shareholders. Time will tell if it succeeds in stealing away Lululemon's customers, but as far as financial strength goes, one might not want to bet on it.

Foolish takeaway
Lululemon's shares have recently been beaten up pretty badly as investors have begun to question the company's growth strategy and plans for the future. When focusing on these issues, it is important to remember that the company is operating from a position of financial strength and that the specialty yoga retailer clearly has the financial flexibility to figure out the best way to move forward. Foolish investors would be wise to take these points into consideration when deciding whether to buy shares in Lululemon. 

There are a lot of catalysts for Tesla Motors heading into 2015. But perhaps most exciting is the wildly anticipated arrival of its Model X crossover SUV. The all-electric-car maker has delayed production of the vehicle more than a few times since debuting the model back in 2012. However, these delays could quickly be a forgotten dream if Tesla delivers a product that exceeds consumers' expectations. CEO Elon Musk said he now expects to reach volume production of the Model X in the second quarter of next year.

Here are two reasons why it could be Tesla's fastest-selling EV to date.

Source: Tesla Motors, Model X.

Robust recent SUV demand 
Stronger than expected demand for pickup trucks and SUVs boosted auto sales in May. Sales of General Motors'  Yukon sport utility vehicle surged 137% in April, while sales of GM's Chevrolet Suburban climbed 32%. Other manufacturers have also experienced higher SUV sales recently. Toyota's 4-Runner model, for example, captured sales growth of 64% in April.

On top of this, sales of small SUVs could climb as much as 12% annually through 2015, compared with just 5.6% growth for the broader auto industry, according to The Wall Street Journal. Consumers want spacious vehicles, but they don't want gas guzzlers. Moreover, "volume and pricing data suggest luxury car buyers are trading up to higher-priced SUV segments," according to Bloomberg.

Ultimately, car buyers may be willing to pay more for Tesla's Model X if it means saving thousands of dollars each year at the pump. With Tesla's Model X, drivers get the best of both worlds: a roomy SUV without the burden of increased fuel costs.

Taking the luxury SUV experience to the next level
At Tesla's recent annual shareholder event, Musk said the production-ready version of Tesla's Model X would "completely blow people away." He went on to say that delays were necessary to deliver the best possible product. Musk added: "At Tesla whenever we show off a car as a demonstration item, the actual production car will always be better than what people saw."

If this is more than hyperbole, Model X sales could zoom past those of its predecessor, the Model S. Musk gave us more evidence of this during the company's fourth-quarter conference call.

"The Model X demand is very high. ... Even though there is zero marketing for the Model X. In relative terms, it appears that the X will see at least as much demand as the S. And if I were to guess -- and this is just a guess -- I think the X demand will exceed S demand," Musk explained.

Source: Tesla Motors.

Musk's word is certainly good for something. Since taking Tesla Motors public in 2010, he has achieved many seemingly insurmountable milestones, including ramping up production of its Model S and winning the Academy Award of autos when the Model S took home Motor Trend's 2013 "Car of the Year" award.

Going for gold
Given the early indicators described above, it won't be surprising if Tesla's Model X receives accolades of its own when it officially hits the road in early 2015. Until then, investors should keep an eye on Tesla's stock. If the Model X is as mind-blowing as Musk believes, not only could demand exceed that of the Model S, but this vehicle could also fuel Tesla's status as a top momentum stock in the year ahead.

When Apple first launched the iPhone 5s, one of the key features of the new phone was that it sported a very robust fingerprint sensor built right into the iconic home button. At first, people were skeptical -- fingerprint readers aren't anything new and, particularly in notebooks, weren't always the most user friendly. However, Touch ID's simplicity was a game changer.

As is always the case with any technological innovation, there's one small company that's aiming to bring Touch ID to the masses.

Touch ID for everybody?
If you've been following tech stocks, you'll note that Synaptics , a leading vendor of touchpad and touchscreen sensor solutions, has been on an absolute tear.

A not-so-insignificant part of the company's recent outperformance (the company guided up for the current quarter) has been due to its very timely acquisition of Validity Sensors, a small fingerprint sensor solution provider very similar to AuthenTec, which Apple acquired in 2012 for $356 million.

Synaptics' new fingerprint sensors scored a nice design win in the Samsung Galaxy S5 and, more recently, Samsung's recently announced Galaxy Tab S series of tablets.

This is just the beginning of a long, rich roadmap of products, according to Synaptics' CFO Kathleen Bayliss (emphasis mine):

This is the roadmap. We're basically providing slide sensor solutions today in notebooks; we are the provider in the marketplace today for notebooks. In mobile phones [there is] also [a] slide-based solution. Our small area touch solution, where you touch your mobile phone, we expect to see that shipping in the second half of this calendar year.

The swipe sensor found on the Galaxy S5 and Galaxy Tab S is better than no sensor at all, but many seem to prefer Apple's Touch ID. With Synaptics rolling out is own home-brew version of Touch ID, a broader number of handset vendors will be able to integrate this functionality into their devices.

Samsung, locked in a perpetual competition with Apple for high-end smartphone share, should be pleased..

Great for Synaptics, but what about Apple?
As the handset market looks to differentiate further, Synaptics appears to be in the driver's seat for even more content share gains. It's not inconceivable that, in three to five years, most smartphones will come with a Touch ID-like fingerprint reader, further democratizing key high-end smartphone features today. The market seems to agree, as Synaptics shares are trading near all-time highs.

For Apple investors, the question becomes a bit trickier. The unfortunate reality for Apple is that any technological leap or innovation -- the smartphone, 64-bit apps processor, touch sensor, and app store -- can and will be copied by others looking to profit from the democratization of this technology.

This means that Apple needs to not only deliver a better, more refined experience than its competitors, but it also needs to stay a step ahead with respect to technological and feature innovation. This isn't impossible, but it gets harder with each generation.

Foolish bottom line
For Synaptics investors, this couldn't be more welcome news. The company is firing on all cylinders, benefiting from both the secular growth of the smartphone market while at the same time continually expanding its content share within those devices. Further, at just 21 times this year's expected earnings and 18 times expected 2015 earnings, the stock isn't exactly expensive.

For Apple, though, this is an illustration of why investors are probably shy about paying a high multiple for the stock. As great as Apple is, there is always the looming risk that it will eventually not be able to stay far enough ahead of the low end to command the margins, pricing premium, and volumes that it enjoys today.

Postle field, Oklahoma, at sunset. Source: Wiki Commons

For upstream master limited partnerships, or MLPs, 2013 was a banner year for acquisitions. In February of last year Linn Energy (NASDAQ: LINE) announced the biggest acquisition in upstream MLP history when it acquired Berry Petroleum for what ultimately amounted to a $4.3 billion transaction. Other big names were active as well: BreitBurn Energy Partners (NASDAQ: BBEP) made a $900 million acquisition of mature, oil-producing acreage in Oklahoma last summer. This acquisition was also the biggest BreitBurn had ever done. And there were many more from others, too.

But why so many over the last few years? Many point to low interest rates, but rates have been low for the past six years. Actually, the real driver behind all this acquisition volume has been shale activity. Although upstream MLPs do not invest heavily in the shale, the companies on the selling end of these acquisition deals do. 

As exploration and production companies have acquired heavily in the shale, they used their older, mature acreage to finance this buying spree. As such, the market was flooded with mature acreage over the previous few years. 

But we can already see that this 'buyer's market' for MLPs is ending. Total upstream acquisitions in 2013 were flat, and the number for 2014 will likely be lower. Instead of acquiring new shale acreage, most firms are now focusing on optimizing what they already have. As E&P companies optimize and develop their shale acreage, that acreage will come closer to being cash flow neutral and will eventually become cash flow positive, hence eliminating the need for further financing. Finally, natural gas prices have bumped up, which compels these E&P companies to hold onto mature, gas-producing acreage instead of selling it to the MLPs. 

End of an era
All this points to the same thing; for upstream MLPs, 2014 will not likely be as active an acquisition year as 2013 was. That is not at all a bad thing, as upstream MLPs now have a lot of optimization to do themselves. As the situation for mature acreage becomes less of a buyer's market, the better upstream MLPs will be the ones that have already built up their portfolios for many years of modest but meaningful growth. 

Thankfully, many of the upstream MLPs already have done just that. Which ones do I think have the best portfolios for the future? Not to sound like a broken record, but Linn Energy is the most obvious choice. Linn's huge position in California is the envy of the upstream MLP industry, and it's not hard to see why: Long-lived production, decline rates in the low single-digits, and some of the highest EBITDA margins there are. 

Another obvious choice is BreitBurn Energy Partners. BreitBurn's western Oklahoma acreage, while not quite as profitable as Linn's in California, can produce at least another ten years of production growth. While Linn and BreitBurn are not the only two that have put the finishing touches on their portfolios, I believe that both will do well in this environment of fewer acquisitions.

Bottom line
I believe that the upstream MLP 'acquisition bonanza' of 2009-2014 is entering its last innings. The investor should not see this as a bad thing. During the acquisition spree, upstream MLPs either racked up debt or issued lots of equity to make these acquisitions. That, too, should begin to taper off. Perhaps at some point, still a few years off in the distance, some of these upstream MLPs will even begin paying off debt. 

With growing health concerns over soda, more and more consumers are shifting toward non-carbonated beverages. The slump in demand for soda and changes in consumer preferences are forcing key industry players like Dr Pepper Snapple Group to pour more money into still beverages. Amid this changing trend, whether or not the company can outpace its industry peers like Monster Beverage and The WhiteWave Foods Company remains to be seen.

First-quarter earnings
Dr Pepper Snapple's first-quarter earnings came in at $0.74 per share, which beat the analyst estimate of $0.59 per share. Earnings also climbed 40% year-over-year and the company attributed this to solid margins, strong revenue, and lower taxes. 

Net sales grew 1% to $1.40 billion as a result of improving sales volume and price increases. Adjusted operating margin inched up 290 basis points to 17.7%. The effective tax rate during the quarter was 34.4%, a decrease from 36.4% in the comparable quarter.

What is Dr Pepper Snapple up to?
According to Beverage Digest, volume for carbonated soft drinks, or CSD, dropped 3% in 2013; this marks the ninth consecutive year in which it has declined. As consumers have become more wary of artificial sweeteners and health concerns have pushed them away from drinks with high sugar content, they are looking for alternatives such as juices and energy drinks. In addition, regulatory pressures and new taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages are also hurting CSD sales.

Due to this growing health awareness, Dr Pepper Snapple has increased its emphasis on still beverages. For instance, it recently launched a Mott's juice drink with 40% less sugar and no artificial sweeteners. Moreover, the company has also introduced several new flavors to its Mott's Adults line. In order to attract customers during the summer season, it has offered a limited time offer of Dr Pepper Vanilla Float.

During the quarter, Dr Pepper Snapple entered the fourth year of its Rapid Continuous Improvement program, or RCI. Under the program, the company eliminated excess inventory from its warehouses. As a result, it reduced its warehouse footprint by 0.5 million square feet or about 3%. Further, it also cut driver check-in and check-out times by 50%. Management is hopeful that complete implementation of RCI throughout the company will enhance productivity even more.

In 2014, Dr Pepper Snapple expects its transportation costs to increase by $17 million. It projects that people-related costs will jump by $30 million as a result of higher labor and health costs. Higher taxes in Mexico will increase its cost of goods sold by approximately 1.6%. Furthermore, foreign exchange translation will hurt its operating profit by 50 basis points.

During this year, the company will buy around $375 million to $400 million of its common stock. It expects volume to drop slightly due to a decline in sales of non-carbonated drinks. However, the company believes that its net sales will be flat to up 1%. Its earnings guidance remains unchanged at $3.38-$3.46 per share.

Industry peers
During its latest quarter, Monster Beverage reported per-share earnings of $0.55, which beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.49. Earnings were also up 49% from last year's comparable quarter, as the company benefited from lower tax rates and selling and marketing expenses. Although the company posted 10.7% growth in revenue, it missed analysts' expectations by 1.6%; it attributed this to new products which cannibalized the sales of existing ones. Another reason for weak revenue was the company's energy drink segment, which didn't perform well abroad.

The maker of organic foods and beverages, WhiteWave, recently posted its first-quarter results. Its earnings stood at $0.22 per share, up 40% from the same period last year. Both earnings per share and revenue topped the Zacks Consensus Estimates by 10% and 5%, respectively. Revenue skyrocketed 36% to $830 million as the company's North American and European businesses experienced strong volume growth. Going forward, WhiteWave plans to ramp up its production capacity and this should help it generate even more sales.

Final thoughts
Dr Pepper Snapple had an admirable first quarter as its earnings and revenue beat expectations. Just like other beverage companies, Dr Pepper Snapple has been exposed to the bumps in the US soda market. For this reason, it is rightly making more investments in still beverages rather than carbonated drinks.

The RCI program has improved the company's productivity to a great deal and will continue to do so in the coming years. This will also enhance value for its customers, suppliers, employees, and finally its shareholders. Dr Pepper Snapple has maintained its prior earnings guidance, which is an encouraging sign for its investors.

However, unlike its big competitors PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, it doesn't have a strong presence in the emerging markets (especially Asia) where people still aren't quitting soda. Therefore, carbonated soft drinks will keep hurting Dr Pepper Snapple in the long run. Considering this, I will remain neutral on the company at this point in time.

The Independence Day holiday will make this week a short one for investors following the Dow Jones Industrials , but that doesn't mean there'll be any less economic data for them to keep an eye on. In particular, one key economic report will play the biggest role in the direction of the Dow and the broader stock market this week, as investors will get the latest look on how employment fared in June. Yet investors in Ford , General Motors , and other auto companies will want to watch closely at how auto sales fared last month, as they provide a key barometer to an important part of the U.S. economy. Let's take a closer look at what investors are expecting to see from these economic reports.

Source: Ford.

How will the automakers fare?
On Tuesday, the major automakers will release their sales figures for the month of June. Investors expect sales to drop slightly from May's annual rate of 16.8 million, with consensus figures looking for roughly 16.4 million total sales on an annualized basis. The head of sales at Chrysler Group predicted that Chrysler's June sales figures would be up from year-ago levels, but he had less encouraging views on the rest of the industry, projecting overall U.S. sales to come in flat to down 2%. For Ford, one concern will be whether sales of its F-Series pickup trucks continue to slide even as General Motors and Dodge models see stronger sales. As Ford anticipates the debut of its newly designed 2015 F-150, keeping sales of its older-model trucks will force the company to decide between volume and margins in order to get the best business result.

US Unemployment Rate data by YCharts

Employment
In a compressed week, the June monthly employment report will come on Thursday rather than Friday, at the same time as weekly jobless claims data gets released. Economists expect the unemployment rate to hold steady at 6.3% while nonfarm payrolls rise by about 211,000, a small drop from the 217,000 jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported for May and consistent with the range we've seen over the past several years.

US Change in Nonfarm Payrolls data by YCharts

Last month's job gains were notable as many reported how they finally brought the U.S. economy back to its pre-recession levels, having regained all the jobs reported lost between early 2008 and early 2010. But looking beyond the headline numbers, many investors will want to see evidence that efforts to fight long-term unemployment and chronic underemployment are making progress as well. All in all, at the current pace of gains, it could take years for the economy even to approach full capacity in the labor market, and employers will still have to struggle with finding potential workers with the skills they need.

Be ready for volatility
With the Dow Jones Industrials only trading for half a day on Thursday and being closed on Friday, traders will have to cram a lot of response to economic data into a short timeframe. Long-term investors should be ready for volatility and use it to take advantage of opportunities that could arise as a result.

Corinthian Colleges  has reached a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Education (DOE) that ensures the continued operation of its schools. While Corinthian will get $16 million in federal student aid funds it has earned through enrollment, the school will seek buyers for many of its underperforming campuses. Students at affected campuses will go through a "teach-out" process. During the "teach-out," new students cannot enroll, but current students can complete their instructional programs or transfer to another institution.

Earlier in the month, Corinthian announced that federal funding restrictions threatened the for-profit school's ongoing operations. Corinthian receives an estimated $1.4 billion in federal financial aid each year, which makes up 80% of its annual revenue. The DOE's restrictions would have delayed Corinthian's access to the funds for an additional 21 days. According to Corinthian, the funds usually become available within 24 to 72 hours of their request.

How did Corinthian get into trouble with the DOE? Is the school in trouble with other regulators? And what does Corinthian's crisis mean for its for-profit educational competitors ITT Educational Services ; Strayer Education ; and DeVry Education Group ? 

Regulators give Corinthian Colleges a closer look
Corinthian's dropout rates, student loan default rates, and marketing about job-placement rates have drawn the scrutiny of the DOE and other regulators.

The DOE noted that Corinthian has failed to cooperate with the federal probe into allegations that it altered grades and misled the public on job-placement rates. Federal officials have sent the school five letters since the start of the year requesting data and other documents, yet Corinthian has failed to adequately respond to any of the letters.

Corinthian's regulatory troubles are not limited to the DOE. In its April quarterly earnings release, Corinthian stated that the Massachusetts Attorney General had filed a complaint against the company that month. The complaint alleges that Corinthian pushed students into high-interest subprime loans to fund their educations and misrepresented job-placement rates.

In January, an investigation by attorney generals from multiple states (led by Iowa's attorney general) began. The information sought by this multi-state investigation includes organizational information; tuition, loan, and scholarship information; lead generation activities; enrollment qualifications for students; accreditation; completion and placement statistics; graduate certification and licensing results; and student lending activities. As of April, a total of 16 states were involved in this investigation.

Due in part to its regulatory challenges, Corinthian was already facing declining financials. Its April quarterly revenue was down 11.7% to $349.8 million, compared to $395.9 million for the same period last year. Enrollment fell 13.7% to 74,498 compared to last year's enrollment of 86,297. New enrollment dropped 13.1% to 22,853 from 26,288 last year.

Are the other schools passing or failing?
ITT is facing its own regulatory challenges. In February, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, sued ITT, alleging that the school exploited its students and pushed them into high-cost private student loans that were very likely to end in default. This is the first CFPB lawsuit against a for-profit college. ITT's May quarterly earnings release acknowledged that the school was working with the Office of the Chief Accountant of the SEC in connection with the company's accounting for its PEAKS Private Student Loans. This delayed ITT's financial reporting. However, operational data was available for the quarter. Student enrollment fell 7.4% to 40,379 for the period, compared to an enrollment of 43,627 for the same period last year. New enrollment also dropped 3.8% to 16,746 from 17,412 a year ago.

Strayer did not report any investigations or regulatory pressures. However, it still faces some financial challenges. In its May earnings release, Strayer reported that its first-quarter revenue dropped 15% to $116.5 million from $137.5 million for the same period last year. This resulted from lower enrollment. Total enrollment fell 10% to 41,327 from 46,130 last year. There was some encouraging news: Strayer's new enrollment grew 1%.

Like Strayer, DeVry is not under any current investigation or any regulatory pressures. It is in even better shape than Strayer. In its April earnings release, DeVry reported a slight drop in quarterly revenue -- down 1.5% to $496.1 million from $503.8 million last year. Its enrollment was up by 1.7% to 121,643 students compared to 119,523 students last year. Much of the new student enrollment came from its nursing schools and  DeVry Brasil. The nursing schools could add four campuses by the end of fiscal 2015. DeVry Brasil added nine new degree programs in the past quarter. DeVry also engaged in high-profile marketing, as it was the official education partner for Team USA at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. 16 of DeVry's student athletes competed in either the 2014 Olympic or Paralympic Olympic Winter Games.

Grading the schools
Corinthian's outlook is bleak. It faces challenges on multiple regulatory fronts with other related challenges while it conducts ongoing educational services. ITT is also facing its own regulatory pressures and faces dropping enrollment. While it's not facing any government action, Strayer is struggling but has shown some signs of growth in its latest enrollment figures.

While its revenue remains essentially flat, DeVry has shown enrollment growth and has engaged in a high-profile marketing push with its Team USA partnership at the 2014 Sochi Olympics. Of the four for-profit schools, DeVry is the one that makes the grade.

Source: AMC Entertainment

It's an open secret that fewer people are going to the theaters to watch movies. According to data released by the Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA, North American movie admissions have fallen from 1.50 million in 2004 to 1.34 million in 2013.

But this doesn't automatically mean that movie-related companies are making less money. In fact, movie theater operator AMC Entertainment and National CineMedia have proven that the opposite is true.

Making more money from the same movie-goers
With the increased availability of both legal and illegal means of video streaming & downloading, movie theaters can't just be pure exhibitors to compete. Instead, they have to evolve into providers of complete leisure experiences.

AMC Entertainment is the second-largest exhibitor in the U.S. with close to a fifth of the market and it boasted a footprint of 341 theaters and 4,945 screens as of May 2014. It has set its sights on maximizing revenue per customer visit to fight declining admissions. AMC Entertainment has introduced varied F&B concepts (F&B Kiosks, Marketplace, and MacGuffins) to grab a bigger slice of the movie-goer's wallet share.

There is nothing new or unique about the F&B kiosks you see at most theaters, but AMC Entertainment has expanded its product range to take advantage of impulse-driven purchases.

Marketplace is a concession built with a convenience store model in mind, offering a variety of made-to-order drinks & foods such as steak sandwiches, pizzas, and gourmet espressos & lattes. Marketplace currently appears in 16 of AMC Entertainment's theaters, and it plans to expand the concept to another 16 by the end of this year.

Another new F&B concept is MacGuffins, a bar & lounge establishment that comes complete with a full alcohol menu. AMC Entertainment plans to increase the number of MacGuffins locations from 66 to 93 within the next 12 months.

Furthermore, it has taken the concept of 'food & movies' to a different level with its 13 dine-in theaters, which accounted for an estimated 10% of circuitwide F&B revenue. AMC Entertainment estimates that an average patron spent 172% more on F&B at a dine-in theater than at a run-of-the-mill theater with F&B offerings.

The results speak for themselves. AMC Entertainment has improved its F&B revenue per patron both in historic terms and on a peer-comparison basis. For the first quarter of 2014, AMC Entertainment's F&B revenue per patron of $4.05 represented a 3% year-on-year improvement. In addition, its F&B revenue contribution is the highest in the industry, 11% more than that of its nearest competitor.

Source: National CineMedia

Profiting from movie-goers in another way
Companies that spend money on advertising have traditionally faced issues in reaching out to consumers.

Firstly, it isn't easy to target desired audiences with ads. Secondly, the company has no guarantee that consumers will watch the advertisements.

In a way, movie ads beat their traditional media counterparts because they provide better audience targeting and viewers can't skip them. The different movie genres provide good clues as to the interests and buying habits of individual movie-goers; also, no patron will intentionally arrive late to avoid advertisements at the expense of missing the opening minutes of a movie.

National CineMedia makes profits by selling cinema advertising across the country's largest theater network, which comprised 3,378 screens as of the first quarter of 2014. Its dominance in the space is further entrenched by the fact that the country's three largest theater circuits, including AMC Entertainment, are locked into two decade-long agreements with National CineMedia. It also has an asset-light business model, so National CineMedia requires limited capital expenditures (historically under 5% of sales) to grow.

Currently, cinema advertising represents less than 0.5% of the U.S. advertising market, which was valued at $157 billion in 2013. As time-shifting digital video recorders and video-click fraud become more prevalent, more advertisers will look to National CineMedia's cinema advertising services as a new outlet for media budgets where viewers can't skip ads.

According to Kantar Media, media advertising spend has been flat for the past five years from 2008 to 2013, with cinema advertising and outdoor advertising gaining at the expense of newspapers and network television.

National CineMedia's financial performance has been nothing short of impressive. As movie admissions in the U.S. and Canada fell from 1.40 million in 2006 to 1.34 million in 2013, National CineMedia grew its revenue and operating income before depreciation and amortization by compound annual growth rates of 7.7% and 7.9%, respectively.

This validates my view that National CineMedia is growing its advertising share at the expense of traditional media and declines in the number of movie-goers haven't affected its fortunes.

Foolish final thoughts
In my opinion, movie admissions will continue to decline gradually as consumers' lifestyles evolve. But this doesn't mean that all movie-related companies are unattractive. National CineMedia and AMC Entertainment represent such investment opportunities which might have been overlooked by those who are negative on the film industry at large.

Samsung  CFO Lee Sang Hoon recently warned that its second-quarter earnings may be "not that good." That's a pretty blunt assessment, but it's not without reason.

As Bloomberg reported, "Samsung's smartphone shipments fell to 78 million units in the second quarter from 87.5 million units in the previous quarter, according to estimates from IBK Securities Co." 

Not that good.

In the following This Week in Tech video, The Motley Fool's general manager, Eric Bleeker, and tech bureau chief Max Macaluso analyze Samsung's recent revelations, what recent Google   announcements mean for the South Korean tech giant, and the company's next phase of growth.

Eric also notes that while Samsung might be struggling in smartphones, its lack of success is baked into its current share price. The company trades at an astoundingly low 6.5 times earnings. For comparison, Apple  trades at about 15.5 times earnings. Back out Samsung's cash, and it trades at almost four times earnings. That's significantly cheaper than Apple ever was even when its shares were trading at 60% of their current level last summer. 

So, while Samsung's quarter might have not been "that good," investors are expecting the worst is yet to come. 

As if Tesla's Model S hasn't scooped up enough accolades already, the top selling luxury car can now count one more to its name: the top spot of Strategic Vision's Total Quality Index. What does this mean? In short, the Model S is striking a new key with owners -- and it's a sweet one that other manufacturers may have trouble imitating.

Model S. Image source: Tesla Motors.

The study
Strategic Vision says that its 19th annual Total Quality Index study is a pivotal one.

TQI absolutely offers a glimpse into the future, as it did seven years ago when we headlined our TQI results, '... Perceived Quality the New Paradigm ...' where we predicted Hyundai's successes through 2013," says Alexander Edwards, President of Strategic Vision.

In 2007, Strategic Vision explained, critics questioned the research company's prediction of Hyundai's success through 2013. But today, "[N]o one can deny the success Hyundai enjoyed."

Now Strategic Vision is back with a new bet on electric-car maker Tesla Motors. The company says the fact that the Tesla Model S is ranked the Best Model in Total Quality could be "predictive" of the future. According to Christopher Chaney, Strategic Vision's senior vice president:

All I can say to manufacturers is prepare to listen carefully to what car buyers are saying through these scores, be nimble and include "True Innovation" that is bold and smart. ... Tesla built a vehicle that generated love in attributes that were most important to segment buyers. Tesla isn't an electric vehicle that just has good features, but instead it's a luxurious sports sedan that has "True Innovation," as well as a rocket-like speed and drive feeling, that just happens to be an electric vehicle. I would call on all manufacturers looking toward electrification to implement a mantra of building super cool transportation that impresses the heck out of customers, and "happens to be electric." Very few people are looking for an overpriced electric breadbox/toaster with nothing cool. Consumers are powerful, have the Internet and know how to use calculators.

Not only did the Model S take first place as the best model, it also received a higher score in that category (963) than any other category surveyed. The second-highest score came from the premium convertible/roadster category, with the Mercedes SL-Class topping the list at 957.

Author touring the Model S. 

Strategic Vision speaks boldly about its TQI, saying that it is a holistic measure of the key facets that drive "excitement and other measures that collectively are energized by the emotional response associated with the aggregate of all those experiences - hence Total Quality." The results represent "something meaningful and predictive," said Strategic Vision founder and executive chairman Darrel Edwards, Ph.D.

Owner infatuation
It's important to note that, like the Consumer Reports' owner survey in which Tesla Model S drivers gave their vehicles a 99 out of 100, Strategic Vision's study is a measure of the excitement among owners -- not consumers. So, this isn't a mind-share survey.

Of course, owner excitement can also be an important driver of sales -- especially for a company that only sold about 22,500 vehicles in 2013. Tesla's high level of owner satisfaction is undoubtedly key to Tesla's strong word-of-mouth marketing.

Tesla store. Image source: Tesla Motors.

Will the excitement be sustainable after early adopters begin to dwindle? The outlook appears favorable. The Model S is renowned for its performance by outsiders, too. Automobile Magazine named the car the "Automobile of the Year" in 2013. Motor Trend also ranked the model first. Consumer Reports' ratings from its own critics even matched the Model S owner ratings of 99 points out of 100.

And until other manufacturers begin offering compelling fully electric vehicles with exhilarating acceleration, meaningful range, and an increasingly comprehensive network of fast charging stations, Tesla also offers an entirely unique experience that can't be found elsewhere. Meanwhile, Tesla is putting the plans in place to bring its more affordable all-electric vehicle to a much larger class of buyers: the mass market.

Stocks soared on Tuesday, with the Dow narrowly missing the 17,000 level and both it and the S&P 500 reaching new all-time closing highs. Even as investors celebrated the beginning of a new quarter, though, not every stock managed to post such impressive gains. In particular, Acuity Brands , Fidelity National Financial , and Chesapeake Energy saw the most extreme share-price declines on the day, although for Fidelity National and Chesapeake Energy there were extenuating circumstances justifying the drop.

Source: Acuity Brands.

Acuity Brands dropped 15% after reporting disappointing results for its fiscal third quarter. Revenue climbed 11.5%, sending net income up 38%, yet the maker of lighting products fell well short of the even faster growth that investors had hoped to see from the company. CEO Vernon Nagel argued that the results were consistent with the company's longer-term strategy to encourage adoption of LED lighting and boost its leadership in the lighting space. Yet the path to LED lighting might be more difficult that Acuity is projecting, given the fact that consumers have already been asked to replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents and could be reluctant to make yet another costly switch.

Fidelity National Financial saw its share price drop 13%, but the decline was largely due to the title-insurance provider's distribution of tracking stock of its Fidelity National Financial Ventures affiliate. As a result of the move, shareholders in Fidelity National Financial will receive one share of FNFV Group stock for every three shares of Fidelity National stock owned prior to the split. Based on where FNFV shares finished the day, Fidelity National Financial actually gained ground on Tuesday, and the split will enable investors to choose which part of the company's business areas they want exposure to within their portfolios.

Source: Chesapeake Energy.

Similarly, Chesapeake Energy shares saw their price decline by 6%, but that decline came as a result of Chesapeake's spinoff of its Seventy Seven Energy oilfield services business. Under the spinoff, shareholders of Chesapeake will get one share of Seventy Seven Energy for every 14 shares of Chesapeake stock they owned, and based on today's close, the value of Seventy Seven Energy shares received will all but completely offset the drop in Chesapeake's share price. The move represents yet another way in which Chesapeake has made moves to focus on its most promising assets, divesting or spinning off non-core assets to help make the surviving entity leaner and more agile.

On Tuesday, 3-D printing bears seemed to have capitulated, and shares of 3D Systems , Stratasys , ExOne , and voxeljet all traded higher on extremely heavy volume, suggesting a short squeeze could be under way. The day's movement seems to underscore a continued positive shift in short-term sentiment during the past month, in which 3D Systems, Stratasys, ExOne, and voxeljet have traded significantly higher. However, even with all this excitement, there doesn't seem to be any fundamental reasoning behind today's sudden change of heart.

DDD data by YCharts

Historically, 3D Systems, Stratasys, ExOne, and voxeljet have been wildly popular with short sellers because the stocks are richly valued and it's easy to subscribe to the belief that the future promise of 3-D printing isn't going to exceed its currently high-priced expectations. As of June 13, short interest in the 3-D printing sector has been extremely high, meaning that there's a high number of open short positions relative to the number of shares outstanding. When short-term sentiment shifts positively, it can create a situation in a heavily shorted stock where the price moves aggressively higher on heavy volume.

Source: Yahoo! Finance, Nasdaq, and SEC filings. Rounded to nearest tenth.

Grasping at straws
If you've done a quick news search about why the 3-D printing sector was moving higher today, you were likely bombarded with a host of different reasons why 3D Systems, Stratasys, ExOne, and voxeljet all moved upward. Bloomberg speculated that because 3D Systems canceled its appearance at a Pacific Crest conference in August, it could mean that the company has entered into quiet period and may be taken over; other companies are simply following suit. Barron's published an article yesterday about how the 3-D printing sector's technical indicators are improving and it may be time get reinvested. Benzinga seems to think that a recirculated article about an advancement in 3-D biological printing could be driving the force behind today's action. Clearly, no one has any real idea why 3D Systems, Stratasys, ExOne, or voxeljet are all popping on the day.

Tuning out the noise
Instead of focusing on day-to-day movements, which can be completely arbitrary and take an emotional toll that drive investors to make bad decisions (like chasing performance), it's better to focus on company-specific events that drive long-term stock performance. In the last 24 hours, the underlying fundamentals of 3D Systems, Stratasys, ExOne, or voxeljet haven't changed, and although it's nice for the sector to rally for no apparent reason, it's merely just noise for us long-term investors.

Optimus Prime is back in Transformers: Age of Extinction. Source: Paramount Pictures, a Viacom company.

In 2014's biggest opening weekend to date, Paramount Pictures' Transformers: Age of Extinction topped the charts with $100 million in U.S. box office receipts and $301 million worldwide. Shares of Paramount parent Viacom  stock rose about 1% late Sunday, following the release of estimates.

That isn't surprising, of course. Transformers is one of Paramount's biggest franchises for the filmed entertainment group, which accounts for about one-third of company revenue. What's more, shares of Viacom stock have more than tripled the return of the S&P 500 since the first Transformers movie openedin summer 2007.

VIAB data by YCharts.

Transforming a company
How important are Hasbro's giant robots to Viacom's movie business? Very, especially now that Paramount, like its peers, is making fewer films than it used to.

But don't take my word for it; look at the difference between 2011's results and those of the two years since. Having Transformers: Dark of the Moon in the mix three years ago made a difference, which you'd expect from a movie that earned more than $1.1 billion at the worldwide box office:

Sources: SEC filings.

Iron Man: Almost as important as Optimus Prime
Can we expect the company to get back to 2011 revenue and profit levels with the release of Transformers: Age of Extinction? Not if Viacom's SEC filings are to be believed. Walt Disney's 2010 repurchase of distribution rights to Marvel Studios films has taken a toll on the competition:

"Lower revenues from our 2012 releases were principally due to the difficult comparison against our 2011 release of Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Marvel's Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger," according to a note on page 46 of Viacom's most recent 10-K annual filing.

The message? Not only did we fail to release a new Transformers movie in 2012, we also missed out on profiting from Marvel's The Avengers and Iron Man 3, and every other Marvel Studios movie since then. An expensive mistake by any measure.

Originally, Paramount had agreed to distribute all Marvel films in exchange for a lucrative producer fee amounting to 8% of the gate. But the studio in 2010 sold the rights back for $115 million, missing out on a potential $218.7 million payday for The Avengers and Iron Man 3 alone. Add in Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and the dozens more Marvel Studios movies we'll see between now and 2028, and it's possible that Viacom gave up billions. Whoops.

So while the Transformers franchise is no doubt important and remarkably lucrative, investors need to consider other catalysts. At least one -- the Marvel distribution deal -- has gone missing, taking with it hundreds of millions in potential revenue and profit.

Now it's your turn to weigh in. Have you seen Transformers: Age of Extinction? Do you expect the movie to deliver big profits and drive up Viacom stock in the process? Leave your take in the comments box below.

Source: General Motors.

General Motors just stunned the world, yet again, with another massive recall. General Motors' most recent recall was to the tune of 7.6 million vehicles in the United States alone. If you add that into the automaker's massive running total through the first half of 2014 alone, all 54 individual recalls cover more than 25.6 million vehicles in the U.S. and nearly 29 million globally.

With that massive recall total in mind, the consumers have spoken: They don't mind. The endless recall saga appears to have had little, if any, impact on General Motors' sales, and that was further proven this morning when GM released its June sales report.

By the numbers
General Motors' sales in June increased 1% to 267,461 vehicles, compared to last year. That was far better than Edmunds.com's prediction that GM's sales would decline 8.5% in June, compared to last year.

That doesn't even tell the full story, as GM's sales last month were actually better than they appear. Investors should take into account the number of selling days between comparable months: Last year's June had 26 selling days compared to last month's 24 selling days.

When you adjust for the two fewer selling days, General Motors' sales gain in June, compared to last year, jumps from a 1% gain to a 9% increase.

Back to unadjusted figures, Chevrolet continued to carry the entire General Motors sales figure. Chevrolet posted a 2.5% sales decline in June, compared to last year, yet its 188,567 units sold accounted for more than 70% of General Motors overall sales total.

GMC and Buick improved over last year's June total with a 10.6% and 18.4% gain to 43,550 and 21,403 units sold last month, respectively. That sales performance was GMC and Buick's best June since 2006. Cadillac's struggles continued in June with sales up only a tenth of a percent, and through June, the brand's sales have declined 4.5%, compared to last year.

"June was the third very strong month in a row for GM, with every brand up on a selling-day adjusted basis," said Kurt McNeil, U.S. vice president of Sales Operations, in a press release. "In fact, the first half of the year was our best retail sales performance since 2008, driven by an outstanding second quarter."

Sales of Chevrolet's Silverado remain unimpressive. Source: General Motors.

Disappointing results
While June was overall a success for General Motors, especially since Detroit's largest automaker has faced months of negative press regarding recalls, one consistent disappointment has been sales of GM's most profitable products: full-size pickups. 

This was supposed to be General Motors' window of opportunity before America's best-selling truck, Ford's F-Series, launched its all-new 2015 F-150. Unfortunately, sales of the Chevrolet Silverado were only up 0.6% last month and remain 0.8% lower through the first half of 2014. The story is similar for GM's other full-size pickup, the GMC Sierra. Sales of the Sierra were down 7% last month, but are up 6.3% through the first half of 2014.

Originally, General Motors' strategy was to take advantage of the all-new Silverado and Sierra designs and maximize profits by not offering many discounts. That strategy led to months of double-digit sales declines earlier this year and forced the automaker to increase incentives and deals as the historically strong summer months approached.

Investors would be wise to keep an eye on incentives and market share of competing trucks when Ford's next-generation F-150 hits the dealerships later this year. The F-150's arrival could have a direct impact on GM's profits if the latter is forced to substantially increase incentives to compete, or if it refuses to increase incentives, it could lead to another dramatic sales decline.

Bottom line
Ultimately, General Motors' sales increase of 1%, or 9% on a selling-day adjusted basis was a pleasant surprise compared to analyst estimates. Thus far, General Motors' sales have seemingly been unaffected by the negative attention surrounding the automaker's recall debacle, but investors will have to deal with another massive charge of $1.2 billion in GM's second-quarter results because of rising costs associated with recall repairs.

Source:  Starbucks

By the time Starbucks makes new information public, it is often the result of careful modeling and strategic planning that has been in the works for years. As Fools we love to try to speculate about the long-term future with the limited information we have, most of it in hindsight, without as much tangible insight into the future. Fortunately, management provides us with numbers that presumably came from its secret plotting.

Should we take management at its word?
You should probably never take the management of any company blindly at its word. Do your own homework as much as you can. However, that doesn't mean we should completely dismiss guidance figures either. Starbucks has racked up a long and successful history of delivering on forecasts and delivering results that are almost as delicious as its Frappuccinos so its credibility should carry some weight.

Back in March, Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, told the public that he believed his company was "just getting started" and over the long term it is heading to an $100 billion market cap. It sounded ambitious with the $50-something billion current market cap at the time. But he obviously possesses a lot more information regarding the company's inner workings than we do.

It's all about earnings
Some argue that a company's cash flows determine its valuation. Others say it is by earnings. I say over the very long term cash flow and earnings should be similar anyway so why not just use earnings.

Source: Starbucks

In the short term with Starbucks you'll see that earnings exceed cash flows due to larger upfront cash payments for, perhaps, things such as new locations. Further out this should reverse, and you'll see cash flows that exceed earnings.

During a recent presentation, Scott Maw, CFO of Starbucks, gave some forward details about what the company expects in terms of numbers. He pointed out that global same-store sales growth has been between 6% and 8% for the last few years with earnings growth in a percentage range in the upper teens or low 20s. For this year, Starbucks expects another bump of between 20% and 22%.

Earnings per share for the previous fiscal year ending Sept. 23, 2013 were $2.26 per diluted share. Using the midpoint of 21% growth for 2014 would bring earnings per diluted share to $2.73. Maw and the company believe that based on all of the plans and "many layers of growth drivers" in place, over the long term Starbucks is targeting earnings-per-share growth of between 15% and 20% per year.

Show me da valuation
Using the midpoint of 17.5% in this case again and building up from the $2.73 per share guidance for this fiscal year ending in Sept. 2014, that multiplies out to a 90% increase in earnings for the fifth year from now ending in September 2018. That would put the earnings for that year at $5.20 per diluted share.

Starbucks has usually maintained a P/E ratio of between 25 and 30 over the last five years. For example, based on the current share price and EPS of $2.73 (for which the fiscal year is nearly over), that puts the P/E at around 28.

Source: Starbucks

Let's use the low end of the range or a 25 P/E on the $5.20 per share estimate. EPS of $5.20 times 25 equals $130 per share which just happens to be a hair shy of a $100 billion market cap. Coincidence? Perhaps Starbucks used logic similar to what I did here.

Foolish takeaway
If Starbucks meets its numbers guidance, the stock itself appears quite undervalued for the patient Fool who is looking for a steady long-term winner. There is even some speculative upside that Starbucks is guiding conservatively which it has done plenty of times in the past.

The NPD Group reported earlier this month that U.S. customers ate 1.1 billion servings of bacon in the year ending April 2014, an increase of 6% compared to the previous year. This might be part of the reason why, on this coming Fourth of July weekend, Wendy's is bringing back its 2013 menu blockbuster: the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger .

The competitive fast food landscape has caused the industry's top players to go back to the basics. McDonald's is making breakfast a priority after a big 2013 menu miss, while Burger King is creating new menu items derived from its classic Whopper.

The big question, though, is will Wendy's Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger declare its independence this year and become a menu staple, or will it vanish again like it did in 2013?

The Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger is making its return this coming July 4th weekend.  Credit: Wendy's

Wendy's recent earnings compared to those of its two closest rivals
First-quarter fiscal 2014 earnings for Wendy's showed that revenue fell 13.3% to $523.2 million as a result of the disposition of 418 company-operated restaurants to franchisees, offset by income from rental and franchise fees. However, net income jumped $44.2 million to $46.3 million as a result of successful debt restructuring in 2013.

Company same-restaurant sales were up 1.3%, higher than the 1% reported in the same quarter last year. This came despite the fact that breakfast disengagement in 2013 hurt same-restaurant sales by 0.4% according to management.

Breakfast has been a key theme among fast food companies recently. In particular, McDonald's has brought more focus to the breakfast segment by expanding its coffee offering and adding new breakfast items in the face of competition. May 2014 same-restaurant sales for McDonald's show that it is still underperforming in the U.S. with sales down 1% .

Burger King has recently decided to enter the "breakfast wars" by selling an item it already knows everyone loves -- burgers .

Burger King's stock price has been on its own run lately, up over 19% year-to-date. Even though it reported a revenue decline of 26.5% to $240.9 million in the first quarter due to refranchising costs, net income jumped 68.7% to $60.4 million on growth domestically and abroad. Same-restaurant sales went up across all four of its segments and this included 4.8% growth in its Europe, Middle East, and Africa, or EMEA, segment and 0.1% growth in the U.S.

McDonald's shareholders have been waiting for the company to turn its U.S. same-restaurant sales positive for seven months. The return of Wendy's Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger might make McDonald's shareholders wait a little longer.

Will the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger stay this time?
It is clear that things didn't go as planned for Wendy's in recent months in regard to new limited-time-offerings, or LTOs, on its menu . After the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger made its debut in July 2013, the company followed through with the Bacon Portabella on Brioche in November 2013 and the Ciabatta Bacon Cheeseburger in January 2014.

One of several ads to promote the recently discontinued Tuscan Chicken on Ciabatta at Wendy's.  Credit: Wendy's

After investing in a nationwide campaign through T.V. commercials and social media outlets, Wendy's even invested in its first 'short film' to promote the Tuscan Chicken on Ciabatta sandwich before discontinuing the item.

Hits and misses are part of the fast food game. as McDonald's and Burger King know all too well. The infamous Mighty Wings failure will be on the minds of McDonald's management for quite some time, while Burger King's fall to No. 3 behind Wendy's in terms of U.S. sales is partly the result of its own menu misses.

Wendy's decision to bring back its 2013 hit may also be explained by simply looking at its same-restaurant sales numbers for the past several quarters. As shown below, same-restaurant sales jumped in 2013 when the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger was on fire. Management likely wants to see if lightning can strike twice for the company.

Since the departure of the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger, same-restaurant sales have fallen.  Credit: Wendy's

During its conference call, Wendy's management also acknowledged that competitors will likely replicate items like the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger in some way. This may be another reason for its return.

Overall, there is a good chance that the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger will have a longer stay this time around.

First, the restaurant margin outlook given by the company highlighted issues with rising commodity costs. Beef prices, in particular, caused Wendy's to reduce its margin outlook by nearly 0.5% even though only about 20% of its total commodity cost is beef-related. The ability to market the sandwich in the $5 price range may allow Wendy's to hedge against rising beef costs -- something it wouldn't be able to do with menu items at lower price points.

Second, the long-term same-restaurant sales outlook of 3% doesn't fit with the first quarter's performance. Looking at the figure above, it is clear that Wendy's needs the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger now.

Bottom line
Fifty million pretzel sandwiches don't lie. That is the number of pretzel sandwiches consumed from North American Wendy's locations in 2013.

Will the pretzel bun duo stay this time around? Credit: Wendy's

Wendy's customers have spoken in recent months. Although both the burger and chicken sandwiches with the pretzel bun cost $4.99 and $5.09, respectively, so they cost more than the other LTO sandwiches introduced since July 2013, customers clearly favor the pretzel bun.

In the end, only Wendy's knows if the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger will find a permanent place on the menu this time around.