The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2050, the world's population will reach 9.4 billion, and per capita income will double. This will result in a doubling of energy demand, and in an age of growing concerns over climate change, the world is increasingly looking to renewable energy to power the economies of the future.

In addition, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), $2.55 trillion/year will have to be spent on global energy infrastructure and energy efficiency initiatives.

This presents a massive potential investment opportunity but also comes with many risks. This article will explore both to try to help long-term investors navigate these potentially lucrative, yet dangerous waters. 

The coming green energy gold rush
According to the IEA's 2012 World Energy Outlook report, between 2012 and 2035, $6.4 trillion ($278 billion/year) will be spent on renewable energy as the share of electricity generated from environmentally-friendly sources nearly triples to 31%.

The three largest areas of investment will include wind power ($2.1 trillion), hydroelectric ($1.5 trillion), and solar photovoltaics ($1.3 trillion). 

Source: SunEdison Capital Markets 2014 Investor Presentation

As the above chart from SunEdison Inc (a global manufacturer and retailer of solar panels) illustrates, the IEA's estimates may prove to be conservative, as global solar installations through 2020 are expected to be $1 trillion.

However, as the below chart shows, investing in renewable energy can be fraught with peril.

^SUNI data by YCharts.

So let's take a look at the different ways investors can potentially profit from the green energy gold rush to see what is most likely to make long-term investors money. 

ETFs
Guggenheim Solar ETF tracks the MAC global solar energy index and represents a concentrated portfolio of 26 solar panel manufactures. Its largest holdings include SunEdison, SolarCity , and First Solar Inc, which combined make up 22.5% of the portfolio. The expense ratio of 0.7% is higher than the category average of 0.65%, and potential investors should be aware of the 68% turnover ratio, which will generate higher tax liabilities and hurt long-term returns. In fact, over the last five years, the ETF has lost 12.3% of its return to taxes and generated a -10.41% annual return. Compare this to the S&P 500's 14.2% total return, and it looks even worse.

Another thing to consider is the ETF's extreme volatility, 153% that of the S&P 500. 

First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge US ETF has a below average expense ratio of 0.6% and represents a more diversified 50-company portfolio of U.S. clean energy companies. Its top three holdings include Tesla, First Solar, and Linear Technology Corporation, which makes integrated circuits and power management systems used in solar systems. 

In addition to being more diversified than Guggenheim Solar, its turnover ratio is lower (49%) as is its volatility, with a beta of 1.5 indicating 50% higher volatility than S&P 500.

PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy ETF consists of 57 clean energy companies with international exposure. Its top three holdings include Enphase Energy Inc, Daqo New Energy Corp, and Canadian Solar Inc.

Although this fund has an above-market-average yield of 1.96%, its 57% turnover ratio means 11.1% of its returns have been lost to taxes over the past five years.

First Trust Global Wind Energy ETF represents 49 international companies associated with every aspect of wind energy. Two benefits of this fund are that it represents a diversified yet pure play on wind energy, and it gives U.S. investors access to wind giants that aren't listed on U.S. exchanges. Examples of this include its three largest holdings, Iberdrola SA, a Spanish utility, China Longyuan Power Group, a Hong Kong based builder and operator of wind farms, and EDP Renovaveis, a Spanish utility that specializes in renewable energy. 

In addition, unlike the other renewable energy ETFs, this fund has a longer-term approach with a turnover ratio of just 19%. and lower volatility with a beta of just 1.32.

Finally, Global X Lithium ETF is a way for investors to invest in the energy storage industry, which Lux research predicts will become a $50 billion annual market by 2020.

This fund represents a super-concentrated portfolio (80% of funds are in the top 10 holdings) including Rockwood Holdings, FMC Corporation, and Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile (Chemical and Mining Company of Chile). The fund focuses on the medium term with a 38.46% turnover rate, and a beta of 1.82.

The problem with ETFs

TAN Total Return Price data by YCharts.

The above chart illustrates just one of the many problems with renewable ETFs, mainly that they have massively underperformed the broader market over the last few years. Another problem with these ETFs is the high turnover rate, which investors have no say over. Here at The Motley Fool, we believe in long-term investing, and turnover rates of 50+% indicate the kind of short-term emphasis that not only results in higher tax costs, but also poorer long-term results. 

The high betas and underperforming alphas of these ETFs shows that investors have a good chance of doing better selecting their own investments based on their individual time horizons and risk profiles.

So what about individual stocks?
I'm a firm believer that individual stocks, as part of a diversified portfolio, can not only outperform ETFs, but beat the market as well. When it comes to the renewable energy industry, there are three sectors I think are worth investing in: wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. 

A popular solar stock -- but one to be skeptical about
SolarCity has an intriguing business model that promises to turn it into a solar utility. The company installs solar systems on customers' roofs (consumers can purchase the systems outright, but this is not what the business model is based on) at no cost in exchange for a 20-year contract. Thus each customer becomes a stream of long-term recurring revenue. 

However, there are several things about the company's business model that concern me.

First, as this slide indicates, the typical solar city installation costs $21,000, 62% of which is covered by tax credits, which the company obtains from outside partners such as Google and US Bancorp through tax equity funds. Unfortunately, the tax credit is set to expire by the end of 2016, and should it not be renewed, that would greatly slow the company's plan to grow to 1 million customers by mid-2018 (they currently have 140,000).

The company has recently begun securitizing its solar projects (meaning selling bonds backed by the recurring revenues its panels bring in), which helps reduce its new cost of capital down to 4%. This provides a backup source of funding should the tax credit expire, but it also requires SolarCity to take on ever more debt. Given its recent acquisition of solar panel manufacturer Silevo, and its plans to build a new 1 GW factory (eventually SolarCity wants 10 GW of panel capacity), SolarCity will need enormous capital going forward. For example, it recently pledged $750 million to a Buffalo, NY factory that will have 200 MW of solar panel capacity.

That comes to $3.75 billion/GW of capacity, and given that the project is a joint venture with Soraa (a California LED maker) and the state of New York (which is contributing $225 million of the total $1.75 billion cost), it's not certain how much of that capacity SolarCity will have claim to.

With analysts expecting SolarCity to lose $734 million between in 2014 and 2015 before it announced the Silevo acquisition, and the company posting 12-month levered free cash flow of -$946 million, the company will likely have to issue a lot of debt and dilute existing shareholders through secondary offerings. This could hurt long-term returns, as I explained in a previous article outlining the six largest risk factors for SolarCity.  

Bottom line
The renewable energy market represents a massive opportunity for long-term investors; however, it's an industry fraught with peril as well as much hype and speculation. Whether it's a clean tech ETF or a Wall Street darling like SolarCity, investors must always remain skeptical, carefully examine both the potential risks as well as possible rewards, and never forget the importance of proper diversification. That being said, a reasonable allocation to the industry is warranted, and with the right investments you can take a share of this global $6.4 trillion movement. 

Want to know how to build wealth, following the moves of this guy is a great place to start

If you want to build wealth over the long term, quite possibly the best way to do so is to follow the Tao of Warren Buffett: Buy great companies at a decent price, and hold them for the long term. It sounds easy on paper, but in practice it's much harder. One thing that can help, though, is to look for certain traits that a company possesses, and there are three companies in the energy space -- Helmerich & Payne , Oceaneering International , and Core Laboratories -- that display several characteristics similar to other energy companies in the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio. Let's take a look at why these companies may be Buffett-worthy and whether they should be in your portfolio.

Who are these guys anyways?

Helmerich & Payne, Oceaneering International, and Core Laboratories aren't exactly household names. All three are in the oil and gas equipment and services business of supplying explorers and producers with the equipment and information necessary to get the job done. Although each of these companies goes about it in very different ways, each taps into some very specific needs for the oil and gas industry for years to come. 

• Helmerich & Payne owns the largest fleet of drill rigs in the U.S. that are capable of both directional drilling (necessary to access shale formations) and pad drilling (so operators can drill multiple wells at a single site with minimal downtime).
• Oceaneering owns the worlds largest fleet of remotely operated undersea vehicles, or ROV, used in offshore exploration and production for things like laying undersea pipelines and installing safety equipment on the seafloor. Today the company owns 60% of the global drill support ROV market.
• Core Laboratories specializes in analyzing geological samples from oil and gas reservoirs to optimize production and squeeze out every available barrel of oil. It also uses this data to build diagnostic tools and products for oil and gas drillers to better manage the decline in production of reservoirs over time. 

Cash rules everything around me

Warren Buffett makes no secret that he loves businesses with a strong competitive advantage. Almost every letter to his shareholders has made reference to this in one way or another over the years. If we were to use this as a gauge, then Helmerich & Payne, Oceaneering International, and Core Laboratories pass the test with flying colors. From a business standpoint, they each have carved out a unique niche that puts them in the upper echelon of their respective industries. 

Then again, there are loads of great companies out there that hold competitive advantages over their peers. What really sets a company apart is one that can take that advantage and generate lots of excess cash. Also, if you look at the track records of some of Mr. Buffett's most recent energy purchases, you will find they each share that common trait. 

Sometimes a company's free cash flow can look pretty because of things like asset sales, but H&P, Oceaneering, and Core Labs bring in cash the old fashioned way, through continuing business operations. Excess cash is especially noteworthy for both Helmerich & Payne and Oceaneering because they are actually pretty capital intensive businesses. Since both generate returns from a rental fleet, they need to constantly maintain, update, and expand that fleet. 

Source: S&P Capital IQ

Thanks to the mountains of cash that each company pulls in, all three also have squeaky clean balance sheets. Both Helmerich & Payne and Oceaneering have negative net debt -- more cash on hand than debt on the books -- and Core Labs generates more EBITDA annually than its total debt load. This means that excess cash can make its way to shareholders in the form of free cash flow, and in the process help each company generate fantastic rates of return.

Source: S&P Cap IQ

Knowing that these companies have been able to consistently generate free cash flow and strong returns on capital over the past several years, it shouldn't come as a surprise that these companies have soundly beat the S&P 500 on a total return basis over the long run.

OII Total Return Price data by YCharts

Why would Warren be wary?

There are two main things that might concern investors who look for these kinds of long-term buy and hold opportunities. The first one is that all three of these companies' advantages are based mostly on technology. While this can be a strong competitive advantage, it can also be disrupted. Helmerich & Payne and Oceaneering aren't as susceptible to this because it would also take lots of capital spending to completely knock them down, but anyone invested in these companies needs to be wary of new technology entering this space.

The second thing to remember is the mantra of investing like Warren Buffett. Its not just identifying great companies like these, but also buying them at a good price when other investors have irrationally shied away. Unfortunately today, it may be the opposite case with H&P, Oceaneering, and Core. By just about every valuation ratio, it appears that investors might be slightly irrationally eager.

Source: S&P Cap IQ

Considering that the industry average price to earnings ratio for the entire energy sector stands at 15, all three of these companies carry a decent premium to the market average today. Then again, this isn't too surprising since these companies have proven to be some of the best companies in the space.

What a Fool Believes

I can't say with any conviction that these companies are on Warren Buffett's "what to buy next" list, but they certainly do exhibit a few characteristics that Mr. Buffett looks for in a company. For investors like you and me, my advice would be to definitely keep a close eye on these companies. Going out and buying them today isn't a bad idea, but it's an even better idea to wait and watch for a time when the market goes on one of its irrational tears so you can pick up these companies at a decent discount. 

Since 2009, Delta Air Lines has offered a few daily flights to Love Field, the closest airport to downtown Dallas. Beginning in July, 2009, Delta flew nonstop from Love Field to Memphis; in 2012, it began nonstop flights between Love Field and its main hub in Atlanta.

Delta will lose its rights to fly to Dallas Love Field later this month.

Last year, Delta announced its intention to add 18 daily departures from Love Field to a variety of major cities. However, those plans didn't come to fruition. Instead, Delta found out earlier this week that it will be unceremoniously booted from Love Field later this month.

Love Field: a strategic battleground

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport has dominated air travel in the Dallas-Fort Worth region for the last four decades. American Airlines operates its largest hub there, carrying more than 85% of the airport's traffic on more than 750 daily roundtrip flights.

Other airlines have found it difficult to compete with American's massive flight schedule at DFW Airport. Delta tried operating a rival hub for many years, but it finally gave up in 2005. The only other airline with a significant presence in the Dallas area is Southwest Airlines, which currently operates about 118 daily departures at Love Field.

For the past several decades, air travel at Love Field has been severely restricted by the Wright Amendment, a law that prohibits most long-haul flights there. However, these restrictions end on October 13.

With Love Field opening for longer flights, several airlines have concluded that the best way to counter American's dominant position at DFW is by flying to Love Field, which is closer to downtown Dallas. As a result, Delta, Southwest, and Virgin America all made plans within the past year to expand at Love Field.

Not enough gates

The problem for Delta is that there are not enough gates to go around. As part of the agreement to repeal the Wright Amendment, Love Field was required to downsize from 32 gates to 20 gates. Given that it is logistically difficult to operate more than 10 flights a day from a gate, on average, this restriction sharply limits potential flight growth.

Southwest Airlines controls 16 of Love Field's 20 gates.

Moreover, those gates are assigned to particular airlines under long-term leases. Southwest, which for a long time was the only airline operating at Love Field, controls the lion's share of those gates: 16, in fact. United Continental controls another two gates.

The last pair of gates have been used by Delta in recent years under a sublease from American Airlines. However, American Airlines was forced to give up its gates as part of its merger with US Airways. The Department of Justice awarded those gates to Virgin America, which will start service at Love Field this month.

Locked out

This leaves no gates for Delta. For the past several months, Delta had hoped it would at least be able to share United's gates to maintain its five daily flights to Atlanta. (United has recently operated just seven daily departures at Love Field -- far less than its gates' capacity.)

United Airlines was Delta's last hope for gate space at Love Field.

However, United is boosting its schedule to 12 daily departures in early 2015. United also forged an agreement with Southwest allowing the latter to use United's gates for overflow, when they are available.

Roughly 16,000 Delta customers who had already booked tickets for travel after October 13 will be left out in the cold. In all likelihood, Delta will need to give them the option of canceling or rebooking flights from Dallas Fort-Worth International Airport.

What does it mean?

Ultimately, Dallas Love Field is a very small station for Delta. Losing access to the airport won't have a significant long-term impact on Delta's overall financial results. That said, Delta will have to make amends with all the customers who had booked tickets from Love Field after October 13, and it will need to redeploy the planes that would have served Love Field.

The real losers are travelers who would have benefited from the additional service options at Love Field. Fortunately, they still have plenty of new service to look forward to, as Southwest and Virgin America will add a slew of new routes from Love Field starting later this month.

The "villain" in this story is the city of Dallas. Ultimately, the city had no control over the distribution of gates at Love Field. However, it made an unfortunate situation much worse by waiting until two weeks in advance to hand Delta its eviction notice. In doing so, it needlessly inconvenienced thousands of its own citizens.

Restaurant IPOs have been on fire lately. Both Noodles & Company and Potbelly more than doubled after debuting last year, and El Pollo Loco shares also surged over 100% shortly after going public this summer. Now, investors are already salivating over rumors that the popular burger chain Shake Shack is gearing up for an initial public offering of its own. But with only about 50 locations worldwide, Shake Shack still pales in comparison to Five Guys, the privately run fast casual burger chain that's come to dominate the "better burger" market.  The chain, which now has over 1,000 locations and 1,500 under development, would be the true IPO prize in the fast casual market. It's unlikely investors will ever see the company go public, however. Here are a few reasons why:

1. They're an idiosyncratic, close-knit bunch
Founded in 1986 in Arlington, Virginia, Five Guys, which is named for founder Jerry Murrell's five sons, found a loyal following despite locating itself in a difficult-to-find location in a strip mall-just the opposite of a strategy most entrepreneurs would use. Murrell explained that he wanted to set up in an out-of-the-way location in order to prove that the food was good enough to bring in customers. The strategy worked as word of mouth spread about the tasty burgers, along with some raving food reviews, and one store became five over several years. While the major burger chains like McDonald's and Burger King rely on big-budget marketing campaigns, the company has always eschewed advertising and other gimmicks that the bigger fast-food chains use such as discounts, and limited-time offers and promotions, instead relying on food critics to do the company's bidding. 

Source: Flickr

The Murrells still own 75% of the company, and all seven members have executive roles in the business. They meet once a week at company headquarters in Lorton, Virginia, and even vacation together every summer. In other words, they have full control of the business and like it that way.  

2. They stick with what works
Over the years, Murrell has resisted thousands of requests from franchisees and others to expand the menu, which basically consists of burgers, hot, dogs, and fries, by adding items such as milkshakes, chicken, chili, or coffee. Though the company has experimented at times, he's been insistent about serving only its hallmark burgers and fries as he fears a poorly made item would take attention away from the quality of the products they're known for. 

The company eventually expanded through franchising, starting in 2003, but even that took a lot of convincing. After years of clamoring from various prospective partners to open up the chain to franchisees, Murrell finally agreed after a long debate with his sons and with the help of a copy of Franchising for Dummies.  

The Murrell family knows there's plenty of interest in taking the company public. Jerry Murrell meets with banks every few months, as well as private equity firms, but always declines their offers. 

3. They simply don't need to
All the interest in Five Guys should signal one thing about its prospects of going public: there's no need. The chain is doing just fine on its own. Over the last few years, Five Guys has been the fastest-growing fast-food chain in the country, growing the number of locations about 1000% since 2006. Franchise territories in the U.S. and Canada have sold out, and the burger chain has begun expanding outside of North America. There are now 13 locations in England with another 200 to 300 on the way expected thanks to partnership with Carphone Warehouse founder Charles Dunstone. Currently, Five Guys is not seeking new franchisees as it waits for the sold-out North American territories to develop, and studies results in the U.K. before expanding further internationally.  

Still hungry for seconds?
As Five Guys hits the pause button on new developments, the founding family has amassed a fortune worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The chain has broken annual revenues of over $1 billion, giving it a market value between $2 billion and $5 billion based on peer valuation metrics. Considering Shake Shack is supposed seeking a $1 billion in its IPO with just 50 restaurants in tow, Five Guys could be worth upwards of $5 billion.

Though the company is known for resisting change, at least one transition is looming in the future. Founder and CEO Jerry Murrell is now 70. He has no plans to retire, but a change in leadership could increase the possibility of the company going public. Until then, investors hungry for a bite of Five Guys will have to stick with the burgers and fries.

Every company has one number that defines its success more than any other. For aviation leader Boeing , that number is ...

5,540 

This is the number of commercial aircraft Boeing's customers have ordered, but which Boeing has yet to build and deliver. To put that in perspective, Boeing has estimated that there were 20,910 commercial aircraft in service at the end of 2013 -- Boeing's unfilled orders would replace or augment more than a quarter of the entire global commercial aircraft fleet. Boeing has a huge military-contracting arm, but this segment has become less and less important over time as the company's revenue mix has tilted toward commercial aviation:

Source: Boeing. Percentages may not equal 100% due to other segment contributions.

The shift from a military focus to a commercial focus has been easy to see over the past decade, as Boeing's commercial segment and its defense segment have swung from a 40%-60% revenue split to a 60%-40% split. Without a 166% increase in commercial aviation revenue, Boeing would have barely progressed at all in the past ten years, as its military revenue is up a mere 8%. In real terms, Boeing's defense segment has actually gotten smaller.

Now that we understand why Boeing's backlog of 5,540 jets is the key to its future, let's take a look at the mix of jets in that big backlog, and how much each jet is worth to Boeing's eventual bottom line:

Source: Boeing. Individual backlogs may not be equal to total due to rounding.
* Includes two Business Jet  variants.
** Includes two Business Jet 2 variants.
^ Averages the prices of three 737 MAX variants.
^^ Averages the prices of two 777X variants.

This sum is quite a bit higher than the $376.3 billion commercial jet backlog Boeing reported during the second quarter, but Boeing's conservative accounting excludes purchase options and orders that have not yet been executed by contract. There are bound to be some cancellations before Boeing can finish manufacturing this monster jet fleet -- there have been roughly 100 cancellations to orders made in each of the past five years (last year's orders saw nearly 200 cancellations) -- but the trend has generally been toward an ever-larger backlog, year after year:

Source: Boeing. Orders and deliveries for 2014 are current to end of August.

Boeing has added an average of nearly 500 jets (473, when 2014's current results are annualized) to its backlog each year for the past ten years. At this rate, Boeing's backlog will rise from 5,540 jets to surpass 10,000 jets around 2024, if it doesn't add any new manufacturing capacity. However, the company has managed to increase its manufacturing output from 285 jets in 2004 to 648 jets last year -- it's bound to continue ramping up its capacity to meet the surging demand for its aircraft.

To keep up with this demand, Boeing may need to manufacture at least 800 jets a year. Boeing's manufacturing capacity has ramped up in stages, with deliveries up by 25% to 35% in 2006, 2009, and 2012, followed by two years of roughly equal deliveries in the intervening years. That might mean that Boeing could reach 800 annual deliveries next year or in 2016, if it can boost its capacity at similar rates to 2006, 2009, and 2012. Boeing investors should watch Boeing's regular updates to orders and deliveries closely -- the company's future depends on its ability to work through more of its massive backlog with every passing year.

It's not easy being a banker these days. Low interest rates are dissuading savers. Regulators have tightened not only lending standards, but also the flexibility of financial institutions to collect some fees.  

The end result is that banks are trying to make up for lost revenue by hiking the fees that they can adjust until consumers get fed up. Let's go over a few of the fees that are getting out of hand.

ATM fees are getting out of hand
One of the benefits of having a debit card tied to your checking or savings account is access to your money at an ATM. Unlike banks with limited teller hours, these cash-dispensing automatons are available around the clock in high-traffic locations. 

The rub is that these automated tellers typically aren't free if you're not at your own bank's ATM. A new Bankrate study finds that the average surcharge charge to non-customers has inched higher for 10 consecutive years. The latest average is 6.5% higher to $2.77 per transaction.

That's just part of the equation. Banks take a hit when a customer uses someone else's ATM so they also take a bite on these out-of-network transactions. The average fee rose to an all-time high of $1.58. Combine both fees and we're taking about an average of $4.35 whenever someone strays away from the ATMs located outside one of their bank's local branches.   

Overdraft fees are getting out of hand
As consumers we sometimes write checks or swipe debit cards when we don't have enough money to cover the transaction. Whether it's wishful thinking or ignorance, there's usually a price to pay for attempting to go sub-zero.  

Overdraft fees -- or penalties for insufficient funds -- are also on the rise. Bankrate's survey of consumer banks found that the average overdraft charge is now $32.74, up 1.7% over the past year. It's a big hit, especially since it hits clients that can least afford to pay it. These are customers that are on hard times or perhaps just entered the realm of banking after getting hosed by the sky-high interest rates charged by payday lenders. 

Things changed four years ago with Dodd-Frank. The 2010 Federal Reserve rule now requires banks to have customers opt in for overdraft protection. However, that has also made banks even hungrier for higher fee revenue in an era where fewer customers are opting in for overdraft coverage.  

Interest checking minimums are getting out of hand
Another item on the rise is the average account balance required on interest-bearing checking accounts to avoid monthly charges. Bankrate's survey finds that the average balance has increased 7% over the past year to $6,211. The monthly fees charged when investors can't get their balances over that chin-up bar has inched 0.8% higher to a new high of $14.76.

With interest checking accounts yielding an average of 0.4% the easy solution would be to turn to non-interest checking accounts that usually have lower balance requirements and monthly ransoms for when they are not met. If the difference between the two is money that you can work harder for through higher yields elsewhere, non-interest checking could be the way to go. 

Shop around
These aren't the only ways that banks nickel and dime you, of course. Go in for a wire transfer or to have a cashier's check done and even your own institution will typically charge you for it. Issuing a stop payment on a check or having to replace your lost debit card are just some of the many ways that your bank can make up for lost revenue elsewhere.

Some of the fees are reasonable and fair, but it's up to you to determine how much is too much. Moving away from the megabanks can help. Credit unions or smaller, hungrier banks may offer more compelling fee structures. The Internet could also be your friend with BankOfInternet, Ally, and other FDIC-insured branch-less institutions that pass on the savings of not having to maintain a network of physical branches to clients in the forms of lower fees and better rates. Bank fees aren't going away. You just need to get better at skirting the outrageous charges.

It's common knowledge that charging too much on your credit cards is a bad thing. Not only can it leave you with a mountain of debt that can take decades to pay off, but it can severely damage your credit score, as well.

Source: Wikipedia.

But how much is too much? The answer to this question is quite complicated and is different for every individual. And, your debt can be way too high for credit-scoring purposes, even though you can easily afford the payments.

Conversely, even with a mountain of debt, it's entirely possible that it could have a minimal effect on your credit score. So, how much is too much for you?

Your credit score is one issue
Thirty percent of your FICO credit score depends on the amounts you owe on your various credit accounts. However, as far as credit card debt is concerned, the actual dollar amount you owe plays little, if any, role in determining your score.

This may sound contradictory, but "amounts owed," in terms of credit scoring mainly refers to how much you owe relative to your available credit. For example, if you have $2,000 in credit card debt and $4,000 in total credit limits, you're using 50% of your available credit -- which is actually quite high.

On the other hand, someone with $4,000 in debt, but $20,000 in total credit limits is only using 20% of the available credit. This is much more favorable for scoring purposes, even though the dollar amount owed is higher.

There's no magic number that you need to stay below, but many experts say that, at most, you should use 30% of your available credit, and the lower the better. However, considering anything higher than 30% as "too much" credit card debt is a good rule of thumb.

A few other factors go into this portion of your credit score, as well. For example, owing a balance on too many individual credit cards can be a sign of over-extension, and can hurt your score. A more complete description of how the amounts you owe affect your credit score is available at myfico.com.

Can you afford it?
The second consideration here is whether or not you can afford the debt, and I don't just mean the minimum payments. I know people who have more than $100,000 in available credit, but would consider using even 20% of that as way too much.

When applying for credit with a lender, in order to determine your debt-to-income ratio, generally just your minimum credit card payments are considered. However, this amount is by no means enough. In order to be able to "afford" a certain amount of credit card debt, you should be able to comfortably pay several times the minimum payment each month.

Consider that $20,000 in credit card debt at 17.9% interest would come with a $500 minimum payment, based on 2.5% of the balance, and could take more than 30 years to pay back if you just make the minimum payments. And you'll end up paying almost $49,000 in total. However, if you were able to double the monthly payment to $1,000 per month instead, it would dramatically reduce your repayment time to less than 12 years, and the amount you'll pay to $28,400. Check out the drastic time effects of different monthly payment amounts on credit card debt.

Effect of different payment amounts on credit card debt. | Create Infographics.

Only carry as much debt as you're comfortable with
The bottom line is that, not only should you keep your total credit card debt to a relatively low percentage of your available credit, but it should be affordable in your budget, as well. Just because you can afford the minimum monthly payments doesn't mean you can afford to carry that much credit card debt.

Finally, while there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question, "How much credit card debt is too much," there is an easy guideline to live by: If you have to question whether or not your credit card debt is too high, it probably is.

According to recent data, there has been a massive increase in subprime auto lending. It is so high that The Washington Post even went so far as to call it a "bubble" that's going to burst.

Source: wikipedia

At first glance, it may seem like subprime auto lending doesn't have the potential to become nearly as big of a problem as the subprime home loans that led to the mortgage crisis. After all, a loan backed by a $400,000 home must be inherently riskier than one backed by a $15,000 used car, right?

Wrong. There is one big difference between the two, and it could lead to a big problem for lenders if things go sour.

It's not the size of the loan
While the size of the loan does somewhat quantify the magnitude of the risk taken, most of the risk comes from the type of asset backing the loan. And, there are two types: appreciating and depreciating.

The most common type of appreciating asset is real estate, and what this means is that the value of a home (in theory) will increase over time. So, lenders are generally more eager to lend for purchases of appreciating assets, because if the borrower defaults, the bank can seize the asset and recover all or most of its money.

A depreciating asset is anything that inherently loses value over time, like the cars backing the subprime auto loans currently being made. While the value will never quite reach zero, cars lose value at a relatively consistent and predictable rate over time. The exact rate of value decay depends on several factors, such as the condition of the car and particular make and model, but the general pattern is the same.

So, if a lender is forced to repossess a car, it becomes a very urgent matter to turn around and sell the car to recoup what they can. If a bank lets a repossessed car sit on its books for even a few months, it could lose a substantial amount of its value.

But can't houses go down in value as well?
Well, sure. Homeowners saw this all too well a few years ago. And if a house declines in value to the point where the mortgage is greater than the market value of the home, a lender would definitely have a tough time recouping its money by selling it.

However, the difference is that over time the house's value has an upward bias. The population is increasing, inflation pushes consumer prices upward, and unlike cars, there is a finite amount of land to build homes on.

Let's say that a lender forecloses on a home with a $250,000 outstanding mortgage, but that the house only has a current market value of $200,000. Well, if the lender hangs on to the house, and maybe even rents it out until the market improves, eventually the lender should be able to get its money back. This is part of the reason why several years after the foreclosure crisis, we're still seeing lots of new foreclosures coming on the market.

On the other hand, after five years a car will lose approximately 50% of its value. Over time, the average car depreciates at about 15% per year, while the average home gains 3%-4% per year, based on historical averages. So, over a five-year period, the value should follow a pattern similar to this one:

Value Of Assets Over 5 Years | Create Infographics

Just how big is this bubble?
In 2013, about 27% of all car loans were made to subprime borrowers, or those with FICO scores of 620 or less. And, there are currently over 20 million active subprime car loans.

The average auto loan charge-off is more than $8,500, so even a small rise in the repossession rate could mean big losses for the banks. For example, just 1% of all active subprime car loans represents about $1.7 billion in potential charge-offs.

And, according to myfico.com, 31% of people with FICO scores between 600-649 (the highest of the subprime borrowers) will have a serious credit delinquency over a two-year period. And this percentage shoots up to 70% for the 500-549 range. So, there is a potential for things to get very ugly, especially if the economic recovery runs into trouble.

It's easy to identify industry bellwethers. They are often the largest or most dynamic leaders in their sectors, tipping the rest of the market off on the state of the industry. A bellwether's strong or weak report can move the shares of its rivals. It's just what an industry tastemaker does.

What about corporate America? There are several stocks that provide a good glimpse into the state of our country's economy. Let's take a look at some of these companies that investors should be watching even if they don't own them.

Cintas
The leading provider of workplace uniforms is a pretty fair proxy for hiring practices. If companies are increasing or decreasing the number of employees it should reflect in the number of uniforms that Cintas is providing.

Cintas does more than just corporate identity apparel. It also provides rubber entrance mats, bathroom supplies, and other company essentials. 

Cintas reported quarterly results on Monday. Revenue only inched 0.2% higher to $1.1 billion, but that's not a fair indicator of its actual performance. It unloaded its document shredding service back in April. Back that out and organic revenue moved a more encouraging 7.2% higher. 

This doesn't mean that companies have 7% more uniformed workers around. Prices move up. Cintas gets companies to spend more on other product lines and services. Cintas also gobbles up market share. There will never be a perfect proxy for a country's economy, but Cintas comes fairly close.

ManpowerGroup  
Naturally there's plenty of hiring out there for jobs that don't involve wearing uniforms that Cintas cleans and replenishes every week or so. That's where staffing specialists kick in as a great dipstick for the economy. 

Through ManpowerGroup's many subsidiaries -- Experis, Manpower, Right Management, and ManpowerGroup Solutions -- it helps source and develop talent for 400,000 clients worldwide. It also connects more than 600,000 individuals a year to workplace opportunities. 

ManpowerGroup reports fresh financial results later this month. Analysts see revenue climbing at a 5% clip this year and again come 2015. 

Caterpillar
Let's talk construction equipment. Caterpillar is the major player in construction and mining equipment. From backhoes to excavators, Caterpillar is responsible for a lot of moving ground.

Caterpillar saw sales of its heavy machinery slide 10% in August, but that was the handiwork of weakness abroad. Machinery sales actually improved 8% in North America. If Caterpillar's holding up well it's a good sign that construction activity is picking up. That naturally is a fair indicator of near-term optimism.  

FedEx  
The ability for companies and consumers to spring for speedy parcel and document deliveries is another great proxy for the economy that investors can find in FedEx's results.

Analysts see revenue climbing 5% in its latest fiscal year that began in June. FedEx also announced a couple of weeks ago that its shipping rates will be increasing by nearly 5% across many categories, but let's not assume that the increase in rates is what's driving revenue growth at FedEx. As the economy improves more people turn to FedEx.

Netflix
Jim Cramer isn't always right, but he nailed it last year when he called Netflix a stealth housing play. 

"As more homes are built, cable, dish and Netflix get hooked up," he said on CNBC's Mad Money. "It's a natural tailwind. When you buy that new TV it has that Netflix clicker on the bottom."

Netflix may be a better gauge than cable or satellite television subscriptions for the state of the housing industry these days. The pay TV industry has actually been taking a breather lately, as younger home owners cut the cord and rely on streaming content. Netflix is now the better indicator. 

The Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Exposition happens every year near Washington, D.C. It's the largest Navy-oriented show in the world, and every major defense contractor is there to press the flesh and show off its wares.

Boeing is a big player, of course, and investors should be paying close attention to the defense giant's products. Boeing's "Defense, space & security" security division accounts for roughly 40% of its revenue and about half of operating profit.

I was able to talk with Boeing's Matt Moffit at the Sea-Air-Space expo, and he gave me a great rundown on the company's Navy products. The three he highlighted are the EA-18 Growler, the P-8 Poseidon, and the UCLASS program. You can see it all in the video below.

Video transcript:

Matt Moffit is vice president of Navy Systems at Boeing, and is well-qualified for the job. The retired rear admiral and highly decorated combat veteran brought 34 years of Navy experience with him when he joined the company in 2008, and has piloted several different aircraft.

When I asked him to talk about Boeing's big products at the Sea-Air-Space expo, he singled out three, starting with the EA-18 Growler, which is the electronic warfare version of the Super Hornet.

Very capable, broadband capability that is unsurpassed in the world. It is really the only airborne electronic attack aircraft at the tactical level. And the Navy provides that capability to both the joint world and the coalition world. Whenever they go into harm's way, Growlers and their predecessor, the Prowler, are there to serve the war fighters. Big program... big for the future as things get a little more complicated out there in the war-fighting world with the electromagnetic spectrum and access to it. And that plays into the stealth world also.

Next, Moffit talked about the Boeing P-8 Poseidon. It's mostly known for antisubmarine warfare, but is used by the U.S. military for various other purposes.

I'm pretty sure you've seen that on the news lately with the unfortunate tragedy with the Malaysian airliner. The P-8's that were deployed over in Kadena, Japan, were redeployed, relocated down to Australia and were part of that search process down there. VP-16, the Navy squadron that has their maiden deployment, is out there doing some really good work. Primarily for anti-submarine warfare, but specifically in this case for surveillance, and of course looking for debris and possible evidence of where that aircraft might have gone.

And finally, there's UCLASS, which stands for the Navy's Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike program. Yes, we're talking drones launched off of aircraft carriers.

Other programs, of course the portfolio in the Navy system is 60 programs, so we span basically from the seabed to outer space. Satellites, underwater vehicles, unmanned vehicles. We have a program called U-Class that we're working with the Navy on, it's going to be a Navy program of record. It's an unmanned aircraft off a carrier. You've probably recently heard about other aircraft off carrier, well, this one is the dedicated program that's going to provide ISR capability -- that's intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance -- for the battle group and also for the larger picture the theater commander and also the AOR commander. So, those three programs are probably our biggest programs right now.

There are other big Boeing products of course, including the Osprey and Super Hornet -- and we'll have more about those in our next video.

Reporting from the Sea-Air-Space Expo near Washington, D.C., I'm Motley Fool analyst Rex Moore.

According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, the way Americans use debt in their everyday lives has changed dramatically in the past few years. While the percentage of American households with debt has remained constant at 75%, the average total debt load has dropped by an impressive 13% since 2010.

Photo: Pixabay.

In fact, the median total for all Americans with debt is just over $122,000, including mortgage debt. We as Americans are managing our debt load better in every major category, except one -- education debt. Does this mean more people are taking a responsible approach to their finances, or is there another, less positive reason? Moreover, how worried should we be that student loan debt is still climbing, despite the clear trend toward lower debt in America?

Americans seem to be handling debt better
Not only do those Americans with debt owe less than they did a few years ago, but fewer people are also choosing to go into debt in the first place.

For example, the percentage of the population with mortgage or credit card debt fell significantly since 2010. The average total credit card debt of the 38% of the population that has any has dropped by an impressive 25% from $7,600 to $5,700.

And people are trying to live within their means more than in previous years. The median debt-to-income ratio of those households with debt is about 107%, down from 119% just three years before. In other words, a household with $100,000 in income can be expected to have about $107,000 in total debt. The payments on those debts represent under 16% of the households' income, down significantly from a peak of 18.7% in 2007.

Average Debt Carried by American Households | Create Infographics

It all seems to be producing a healthier American consumer, which is the reason less than 15% of debtors reported being late on any debt, down from a peak of almost 21% in 2007.

Student loans might not be as bad as they seem
Among "young families," which the Federal Reserve defines as those whose head of household is under 40, the rate of student loan debt has nearly doubled since 2001. Nearly 40% of these households have student loan debt, and the average among those that do has grown from about $17,000 to nearly $30,000.

Still, it may not be as bad as it seems. According to recent data, the positive effects of the rising student loan balances of Americans may be worth the cost. For instance, more people than ever before are getting advanced degrees, which cost more money but have significantly higher earnings potential.

And speaking of earnings potential, the gap in the lifetime earnings potential of college versus high school graduates makes the average student loan debt of about $30,000 seem like a drop in the bucket. According to a study by Georgetown University, the average new graduate with a bachelor's degree can expect to earn around $2.3 million in his or her lifetime. That's about $1 million more in earnings power over someone whose highest education level is high school.

Finally, when evaluating student loan debt, we should also take into account the programs in place to make repayment easier. Programs such as Pay-As-You-Earn, which limits student loan payments to just 10% of discretionary income and forgives any remaining balance after 20 years, simply didn't exist in 2001, when loan balances were much lower. Nor did the Public Service Loan Forgiveness plan, which encourages people to get into rewarding (but lower-paying) public-sector jobs.

Where do we go from here?
Although not all forms of debt are shrinking, our culture seems to be getting smarter about it. The most "unproductive" forms of debt, like credit cards and installment loans for purchases other than vehicles, were the types to see the largest year-over-year declines.

On the other hand, although education debt is on the rise, it is a more acceptable form of debt because the ends tend to justify the means a little more than, say, charging a shopping trip to a credit card.

This changing attitude toward debt is undoubtedly an effect of the financial crisis. However, it remains to be seen whether it's a temporary effect because of the lower availability of credit and other reasons. We can hope that this points to a lasting, healthy effect on the borrowing habits of Americans, similar to the effect of the Great Depression on that generation.

You have probably never heard of 31 year old Scott Duncan. That's likely because he's not behind the latest tech wonder that everyone is talking about. That doesn't change the fact that he is worth $7 billion after inheriting a quarter of his father's share of boring energy pipeline business Enterprise Products Partners L.P. . That makes him the fourth youngest billionaire under 40 in America. In fact, if it wasn't for Facebook's  surging stock price, which is behind the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, and Jan Koum, Scott just might have been the richest billionaire under 40 in America. It goes to show that being a tech geek isn't the only path to wealth these days.  

The other pathway to billions
While founding a technology company and then watching its stock soar is the more exciting wealth-building approach, it's neither the only nor the easiest path to building lasting wealth. It's certainly not the path Scott Duncan's family took to amass a multibillion dollar fortune. Instead, the Duncan family's start was a lot humbler than the Harvard dorm room that turned Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz into multibillionaires.

  

Photo credit: Flickr user Ray Bodden 

The Duncan family fortune, which Scott shares equally with his sisters Milane, Dannine, and Randa, all started in 1968 when their father, Dan Duncan, created Enterprise. Dan, the son of a poor Texas farmer, founded the company with $10,000 and two propane trucks. However, he slowly built Enterprise into one of America's largest midstream energy companies.

Dan chose to focus on the part of the energy sector that no one else really cared about. Midstream, which is transporting and processing energy, isn't as exciting as exploring for oil and gas where finding a gusher could lead to big profits. Instead, he built the pipelines that were critical for transporting the these oil and gas gushers to customers. This provided him with steady and reliable income as these pipelines and processing plants were something that energy exploration companies couldn't live without. This allowed Dan to partially share in the successes of exploration without dealing with money losing dry holes and volatile oil and gas prices that have bankrupted quite a few oilmen over the years.

By focusing on the safer side of energy, Dan was able to put all of his attention on building or acquiring additional pipeline, processing and storage assets to support new oil and gas discoveries. Each new piece he added to his system generated more income for the business. Today that vast system he built piece by piece includes 50,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines. That's enough to circle the Earth twice. 

Compounding riches
The steady business Dan Duncan built continues to build wealth as the company follows Dan's legacy by adding new energy pipelines and processing plants to support America's growing energy industry. Each new addition generates more income and wealth for the company's owners. In fact, last year alone each of the Duncan heirs saw their net worth climb by over a billion dollars due to a combination of the generous distributions and capital gains enjoyed by owning units of Enterprise Products Partners.

The Duncan family, however, are not the only ones being enriched as the company has also steadily built wealth for its outside owners since Dan Duncan took the company public in 1998. Over the years the value of the company's units and its income distributions have steadily increased.

EPD data by YCharts

Neither are expected to stop increasing anytime soon as the company has a robust pipeline of future opportunities thanks to the oil and gas boom in America. That means the company should continue to generate a more wealth for Scott Duncan, his sisters and the company's outside owners for years to come.

Slow and steady path to riches
Dan Duncan slowly built one of the most valuable energy companies in America by focusing on an area that many found to be boring. However, his boring business turned his son into the fourth richest billionaire under 40 in America. It's a feat that only Facebook has been able to match, showing that the boring path to richest works just as well as founding an exciting tech company. 

Today, the word "discriminate" gets a bad rap. Don't get me wrong, much of that is for good reason, but we humans discriminate in all sorts of ways every single day. It is just something we do as a part of life, and we often do not even realize that we are doing it. Discrimination is not something most of us would like to admit that we do. But have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps discrimination is something we need to do, something that should even be encouraged?

If you are already or would like to become a landlord, the answer is yes.

Should landlords discriminate against everything? No. You should not discriminate against people because of their age, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin or familial status. It is illegal, wrong and the reason the word discriminate has such a negative connotation today. But almost everything else is and should be fair game.

Related: Protect Yourself As a Landlord With These 6 Crucial Documents

For example, do you or would you review someone's income stream before renting to them? Of course! You do not want to rent to someone who cannot afford it. That is discrimination based upon income.

What about criminal history? Would you rent to someone without checking if they have a serious criminal past? If you would, then you might be naive and are likely to face many other problems down the road.

So what other factors could you use to discriminate against possible bad tenants? Here are five possibilities for you to consider.

5 characteristics you can discriminate against as a landlord

1. Smoking
You can ban smoking in your properties. Yes, you cut yourself off from a chunk of the rental market, but by discriminating against smokers you also reduce your clean up costs and risk of fire, and you may actually attract a better class of tenants.

2. Pet ownership
You do not have to allow pets in your properties, or you could only rent to people who have pets. Pet owners are a significant part of the rental market, but many landlords feel the damage pets can cause is not worth it. On the other hand, some feel that pet owners make better tenants and cater their properties toward them.

3. Job type
Being discriminatory in your rental application process is all about reducing your risk and increasing the likelihood of collecting the rent. You may therefore want to eliminate certain jobs from contention.

Lawyers are one example. Some landlords will not rent to lawyers because some lawyers have a tendency to sue. Other landlords may not rent to truck drivers or landscapers, as they do not want 18 wheelers or mud all over their properties.

4. Constant moving
Ever have an applicant who seems to move every year? If so, you do not have to rent to them. Tenant turnover is one of the major cash flow killers in the landlording business. So if possible, you want to find tenants who will stay for the longterm. You can discriminate against the ones who want to move every year.

5. Sloppy living
Ever have someone show up just plain filthy, with food dripped down the front of their shirt and a car full of trash? I have, and I did not rent to them — and neither should you. If you do, all of that filth will move into your property. It is best to discriminate here.

So remember, it is OK -- and even advisable -- to discriminate if you are or plan to be a landlord. In fact, you simply have to discriminate in order to protect your interests and property. The key, however, is to be consistent in your discriminatory practices. You cannot let one lawyer in and keep another one out, for example.

Related: The Top 8 Mistakes Made By Rookie Landlords

You should give careful consideration to how you will and how you will not discriminate in your landlording business. Write everything down, and keep it handy in case you are ever asked for your rental policies. Remember, you can discriminate, but the person you discriminate against may feel they were wronged and sue. Protect yourself by being consistent and having written policies in place.

[Editor's Note: To make sure you're on the right side of the law as a landlord, always refer to Fair Housing Laws when making decisions about potential tenants.]

Who do you discriminate against in your landlording business?

Please share with your comments!

This article originally appeared on Bigger Pockets and is Copyright 2014 BiggerPockets,

As it came time to renegotiate their long-standing partnership, the National Football League and DirecTV  were in a very different bargaining position than they had been in previous years. Whereas in past discussions both sides had equal need for the other, this time DirecTV needed to make a deal to continue its Sunday Ticket package or its $49 billion sale to AT&T  could be called off.

That took away whatever leverage DirecTV had and forced it to make a deal for the package --which allows subscribers to see every NFL game -- that reportedly increased rights fees to $1.5 billion a season, news which ESPN sports business reporter Darren Rovell broke on Twitter.

BREAKING: NFL strikes deal with DirecTV for Sunday Ticket. 8 year deal, source says it is worth avg of $1.5 BILLION annually.

— darren rovell (@darrenrovell) October 1, 2014

This means that DirecTV will now pay more than CBS , FOX , and NBC, which all pay around $1 billion a year for their football packages, according to CBS Sports. Only ESPN, which pays $1.9 billion per year for its Monday Night Football package, spends more. 

It's a huge amount of money for DirecTV to commit, but the satellite company really had no choice due to the clause in the AT&T deal. 

DirecTV loses money offering the package
DirecTV does not report on how many of its customers pay for Sunday Ticket or the revenue they produce, but Bloomberg estimated in December 2013 that about 2 million U.S. subscribers, or 10% of the 20.3 million total, pay for the package. The satellite service offers a free year of Sunday Ticket to get customers to commit to a two-year contract. The cheapest deal which includes the free NFL offer costs $29.99 for the first 12 months which rises to $66.99 in year two. 

In the disclaimer text which appears close to checkout when you order DirecTV service online, it says that the regular NFL Sunday Ticket "full-season retail price is $239.94"  while the enhanced "MAX" package costs $329.94. If Bloomberg's number is correct -- and there are approximately 2 million paying NFL Sunday Ticket customers -- even if you assume every single one of them pays for the Max package, that still results in only $659,880,000, well less than the $1.5 billion DirecTV will be paying in rights fees. Even if Bloomberg underestimated and the paying number is 4 million, that's still only a little over $1.3 billion -- better, but still a loss.

The FCC decision to end local blackouts also applies to DirecTV (sort of)
While some fans subscribe to Sunday Ticket because they love the NFL and others do it because they play fantasy football or are compulsive gamblers, many purchase the package because they don't live in the market of the team they follow. Sunday Ticket is the only way to watch out-of-market games without going to a sports bar, but one caveat to that has been the blackout rule, which prevented games from being televised in their local market if they were not sold out.

The FCC voted in late September to drop the federal version of the rule and that may put pressure on the NFL, which isn't planning to change its own blackout policies. While nothing has currently changed for DirecTV, which abides by the blackout rules, one possible compromise between the league and the government would be to only have the blackouts apply to free TV. That way the NFL could still exert pressure on local fans to buy tickets because non-sellouts would not be on free TV, but DirecTV subscribers who already pay would get the game.

DirecTV pays more for NFL viewers than any other broadcast partner
The Kansas City Chiefs' blowout of the New England Patriots on the Sept. 29 edition of Monday Night Football on ESPN was watched in 10 million homes, according to Nielsen. That means that even for a blowout, the game on ESPN was being watched in five times as many households as there are paying Sunday Ticket households, and and it only pays $400 million more a season for its football rights. The numbers vary from week to week and the FOX and CBS packages involve multiple games each week, but it's clear that DirecTV pays dearly for each viewer it has without the added benefit the networks have of being able to use football to promote a primetime lineup. 

Why does DirecTV even want this deal?
On the surface, NFL Sunday Ticket looks like a money loser for DirecTV, but it's a strong product differentiator between it and cable as well as satellite rival DISH Network . Though the package may not bring in enough money to support itself on the surface level, it brings in customers who may not stick with the package but do stick with the satellite carrier.

The biggest barrier DirecTV has in wooing customers is getting them to actually install a dish. If a free year of NFL games can lure customers in, then DirecTV can hold onto them even if they don't remain Sunday Ticket customers. That's an expensive ploy, but with AT&T being willing to pony up $49 billion for DirecTV, it's one that has clearly worked.

Since its launch in the late 1980s, the Airbus A321 from Airbus Group has collected over 2,000 orders and has become a common part of airline fleets. And as many airlines move toward larger aircraft, the Airbus A321 stands to see an increase in demand.

Besides being able to haul more passengers than the Airbus A320, two major airlines are finding the Airbus A321 useful for going after a new passenger market.

Mint condition
In the air travel market, JetBlue Airways has managed to carve out its own market of people who want to fly neither with the major carriers nor the discount carriers. But to keep hold of higher-paying travelers and win them over from other carriers, JetBlue is offering a product similar to what major carriers are offering on long-distance overseas flights.

JetBlue Mint suite. Source: JetBlue Airways.

JetBlue is bringing the in-flight suite to the domestic U.S. market in select Airbus A321 aircraft. The suites are called Mint and feature closable doors, a 15-inch screen, a massage function, and fully lie-flat capability.

By making this offering, JetBlue is able to target higher-paying travelers who would otherwise fly first or business class on other major carriers. And surprisingly, JetBlue's Mint suites don't break the bank, either. Often available for as little as $599 each way between New York JFK International and Los Angeles International, these suites are a higher-priced option but not out of reach.

On its website, JetBlue shows two different layouts for its Airbus A321: one with 143 core seats and 16 enhanced experienced seats, of which four are suites, and the other layout with 190 core seats. JetBlue also operates Airbus A320 aircraft with 150 core seats. Based on the number of core seats in each aircraft, the Airbus A321 with the suites is similar to the Airbus A320 if JetBlue were to extend the A320 and add suites.

By adding the suites, JetBlue has chosen to use the extra space of the A321 to sell a premium product, making the aircraft home to one of the most luxurious commercial flight experiences for domestic travel.

Premium layout
JetBlue isn't the only one seeing the potential for a luxury offering in the transcontinental market. American Airlines Group is tossing its hat in the ring by offering its own private suite experience.

These suites have lie-flat seats, an entertainment system available with hundreds of movies and TV programs, and a choice of entree, including such things as shrimp scampi and beef fillet.

American Airlines Airbus A321T. Source: American Airlines Group.

Prices for these suites vary dramatically, with reservations months ahead sometimes costing around $1,000 each way, but Bloomberg found that some fares can hit $8,000. The lower end of this price range could work for affluent travelers, but the higher end is for those who would otherwise be flying a private jet.

But these suites aren't in every plane. American Airlines has turned the Airbus A321 Transcontinental into a luxury flight experience, where only 36 of the 102 seats on board are ordinary coach class, with the others being coach seats with extra legroom and first- and business-class seats. Furthermore, American Airlines is being highly selective on when it deploys these aircraft, having selected New York JFK-to-Los Angeles and New York JFK-to-San Francisco as the only routes this aircraft will operate. 

Obviously this is a big bet on the luxury air travel market, and investors should watch to see how successful American Airlines is in this new approach.

A growing trend?
JetBlue Airways and American Airlines have both used the Airbus A321 to bring these premium offerings to domestic routes where narrow-body aircraft are preferred but extra space is still required.

As airlines continue to look for new ways to sell to the highest-paying travelers, investors should continue to monitor which new features are added and which aircraft the airlines choose for selling these features.

Every day, thousands of different types of items are transported on airlines. But musical instruments -- and the way they are handled -- can cause the biggest publicity disasters of all.

So what is it about musical instruments? How have airlines responded? And what does it mean for your baggage being lost or damaged?

YouTube sensation
Complaints about various airlines are widespread, but few become hits on YouTube. However, an incident involving United Airlines, now part of United Continental Holdings , and Dave Carroll's guitar back in 2009 led to a YouTube video called "United Breaks Guitars," which has now collected over 14 million views.

source: By B777,_B474,_and_A319's_at_SFO_International.jpg: Jun Seita derivative work: Altair78 [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The situation stemmed from an incident where Carroll saw his guitar being tossed around before it was loaded onto the plane, and later found it broken. The song Carroll wrote after the incident led to some negative publicity for United Airlines surrounding the carrier's baggage handling policies.

But the airline seems to have recovered from the incident fairly well. Passengers have kept flying, and "United Breaks Guitars Song 2" has collected just over 1.7 million views -- or about 87% less than the original version.

No cello miles
Delta Air Lines , however, had a markedly different experience. Delta didn't break Lynn Harrell's cello, but it did take away the cello's frequent flyer miles.

Yes, the cello's frequent flyer miles. When Harrell took flights on Delta, he purchased a second seat for his cello under the name Cello Harrell. After flying for several years with both him and his cello collecting miles, Delta removed Harrell and his cello from the SkyMiles program, citing the airline's policy that only humans can collect miles.

source: "N647DL-2008-08-15-YVR" by Makaristos-Own work. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons - 

But like the United guitar incident, Delta's response to Cello Harrell led to some negative publicity, as well as widespread news reports -- including a segment on The Colbert Report.

You may be wondering whether Delta's confiscation of Harrell's miles was legal. This was answered in a Supreme Court case involving a similar miles confiscation: Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg had his miles taken and his account cancelled after he complained too much to Northwest Airlines prior to its 2008 merger with Delta Air Lines. In April 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that the action by the airline was legal given the broad leeway provided to airlines under the Airline Deregulation Act.

Troubles in Canada
Canada's largest airline, Air Canada , is the latest carrier to be involved in musical instrument related troubles. After the airline lost Stephen Fearing's Linda Manzer guitar, Fearing waged a Twitter war on Air Canada and eventually spoke to CBC.

Although the guitar was found two days later, the incident was enough to remind passengers that their baggage could be lost. Fearing also raised the issue that although he got his guitar back, the average flyer might not have had the same luck.

Will your bag be lost or damaged?
Despite the poor reputation among travelers, mishandled baggage rates are actually pretty low. According to Transportation Department data for 2013, American Eagle had the most mishandled bags per thousand passengers at 5.90, and JetBlue has the least at 1.91. Other major carriers came in between, with Southwest Airlines at 3.72, United Airlines at 3.47, American Airlines at 3.02, and Delta Air Lines at 2.19.

However, musical instruments are items more likely to be damaged, and more likely to carry emotional significance for the flyer. As such, even if musical instruments are mishandled at the same rate as other baggage, they would be expected to generate a disproportionate number of complaints and negative publicity.

Going forward
Even though many passengers still have their bags mishandled, reports of mishandled bags have dropped by more than half since 2007. But airlines need to continue working to improve their baggage handling processes and communication with flyers whose bags have been lost.

In the case of both mishandled bag policies and approaches toward frequent flyer programs, airlines need to continue to take a look at whether their current policies are up to the task, and whether policy changes or increased communication could help create more loyal customers. Investors and travelers alike should keep an eye on whether airlines can continue to improve their mishandled baggage rates, and which airlines take the top spots.

On June 8 Warren Buffett revealed that Berkshire Hathaway Inc's subsidiary MidAmerican Energy (recently renamed Berkshire Hathaway Energy) has invested $15 billion into solar and wind projects. Buffett added, "there's another $15 billion ready to go, as far as I'm concerned."

Why is the Oracle of Omaha, who many consider to be history's greatest investor, willing to invest $30 billion into renewable energy? And is it a tactic you should be trying to emulate to build your own wealth? 

Buffett's giant, exploding money pile
Well for one thing, Berkshire Hathaway is swimming in cash, $55.45 billion to be exact, a record high for the company and up an impressive 32% in just the last year.

BRK.B Cash and Equivalents (Quarterly) data by YCharts.

Of course, that fact's not very surprising if you realize Buffett's cash-spewing conglomerate is generating over $2 billion per month in free cash flow. 

Buffett's enthusiasm for renewable energy is also easy to understand in the context of his 2013 shareholder letter where he told investors, "we will always maintain supreme financial strength, operating with at least $20 billion of cash equivalents." 

Cash burning a hole in his pocket
With Berkshire's "elephant gun" now loaded with $35 billion in excess cash, Buffett is steering Berkshire and "intensifying the company's focus on rudimentary, long-lasting businesses," according to Lawrence Cunningham, George Washington University professor and author of the forthcoming book "Berkshire Beyond Buffett." Utility projects are attractive because they allow for continued reinvestment and add-on acquisitions, as Buffett has been doing since acquiring MidAmerican energy, the largest electrical utility in Iowa, in 1999 for $9 billion. 

Since that time, Buffett has added on two major utilities and a power transmission company to Berkshire Hathaway Energy, for a total cost of $22.4 billion. This energy conglomerate with 8.7 million international customers, 16,400 miles of natural gas pipelines, $70 billion in assets, and $12.6 billion in 2013 revenue is expected to generate 10% of Berkshire Hathaway's pre-tax profits in 2014. 

Buffet is so enthusiastic about energy that he recently said Berkshire Hathaway Energy might reinvest about $30 billion into its business in the next decade. "We're going to keep doing that as far as the eye can see... we'll just keep moving."

Buffett's big solar bets
Among many of Berkshire Hathaway Energy's titles is the third largest owner of solar assets in the country, behind only possible buyout target Next Era Energy Inc and First Solar Inc . 

This is a result of three major solar investments totaling $6.02 billion. The first was the 550 MW Topaz solar farm in Tempe, Ariz., the largest solar project in the world at the time, which Buffett bought from its builder First Solar in 2011 for $2 billion. The project ultimately cost $2.4 billion and required Berkshire to issue $1.1 billion in bonds due 2039. 

The second project, the 579-MW Antelope Valley project, is currently the largest solar project in the world, built by SunPower Corporation , and bought by Berkshire Hathaway Energy for $2 billion in January of 2013. To complete the project, Berkshire Hathaway Inc issued $700 million in bonds. The power generated will be enough to power 400,000 California homes and is under a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with Edison International  for "well-above-market prices."

Source: SEIA.org (Solar Energy Industries Association).

The final project is the 290 MW Agua Caliente project, a $1.8 billion solar project built by First Solar and owned 49% by Berkshire Hathaway Energy and 51% by NRG Energy Inc . The project was partially funded by a $967 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy and has a 25-year PPA to sell power to utility PG&E Corporation . 

Source: Energy.gov.

$15 billion is a drop in the bucket
I think it's fair to say Mr. Buffett has some deep pockets and isn't afraid to write big checks. With Berkshire Hathaway Inc now the fifth largest company in the world, with a market cap of $343 billion, and the company generating $25 billion a year in free cash flow, the company's ability to grow fast enough to keep up with the market is being threatened by the possibility of drowning in its own rivers of cash.

Which brings me back to why Buffett is so enamored with renewable energy. Specifically, there are two reasons Berkshire is targeting this particular area of the energy sector. 

First, the global energy infrastructure market is pretty much the only ocean large enough to let Berkshire grow quickly in. For example, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), between 2012 and 2035, the world will invest $6.4 trillion in renewable energy as part of a $48 trillion in total energy infrastructure and energy efficiency initiatives needed to meet energy demands of a growing world.

On scales such as these, Buffett's $15 billion renewable pledge, $30 billion energy investment plan, or even his willingness to make a $50 billion acquisition seem paltry, which is exactly why Buffett is leading Berkshire deeper into the energy sector. It's one of the final growth frontiers left to a company that has nearly run out of worlds to conquer.

Sweet, sweet, tax breaks
The second major reason Buffett loves renewable energy, especially solar power, is the 30% solar tax credit and accelerated depreciation schedule, known as the Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System, which allows Berkshire to write off the depreciation in just five years. 

How much does this really make a difference? Well, if Berkshire were to invest $15 billion into the solar project through 2016 (the tax credit is set to decline to 10% for utility scale solar projects at the end of that year), the company would be able to accrue $4.5 billion in tax write-offs over five years, or $900 million annually. 

For a company starting to run out of ways to grow, investments into clean energy that provide these kind of tax benefits (and automatic shareholder wealth creation), as well as decades of predictable cash flows, are simply too good to pass up. No wonder Buffett can't seem to get enough. 

How can I cash in on this?
There are three easy ways for long-term investors to join the solar bonanza. The first, easiest, and least risky is to own shares of Berkshire Hathaway, which is trading at its historic 21-year average P/E ratio and 22.5% above the level at which Buffett is willing to buy back shares (1.2 times book value).

With analysts expecting 8.5% earnings growth from the company over the next five years, and shares fairly priced, investors shouldn't expect mind-blowing returns, but you also aren't likely to lose your shirts, either (the stock is 71% less volatile than the S&P 500). 

Two more speculative investments into solar are SunPower and First Solar, two of the largest manufacturers of solar panels (and both profitable, a rarity in this industry) and builders of the massive utility-scale solar projects Buffett is so found of buying -- and hinting that he'll be buying a lot more of. 

Takeaway
Warren Buffett is a man with an enviable problem. His company is simply generating so much free cash flow that it's threatening his ability to grow the company's profits, and thus his investors' (and his own) wealth. Thus, Mr. Buffett has turned to one of the few global industries large enough to grow into: global energy infrastructure and renewable power. These offer not only somewhere to reinvest his rivers of cash, but also tax credits that can help boost Berkshire's earnings growth rate and boost the stock price by a significant amount. 

If you want to join Mr. Buffett in this new green gold rush, investing in SunPower, First Solar, or Berkshire Hathaway are great places to get started, but, as always, only as part of a diversified portfolio. 

The company hopes it has the right dimensions for success. 20 Yard Dumpster image: Waste Management.

Waste Management  stock has so far enjoyed a credible, if not stellar, 2014, inching ahead of the S&P 500 Index's year-to-date gain of 8% by roughly 0.75% on a total return basis. While the company has posted solid earnings through the first two reported quarters of 2014, risk factors abound nonetheless. Investors who follow this waste-hauling giant may want to keep the following three risks in mind.

1. The company's price-versus-volume bent may hurt in the short term

A characteristic of Waste Management's business strategy is its tendency to raise prices on customers, both during the term of contracts, in the form of annual escalations, and at contract renewals. Management clearly favors higher yields on its business segments versus gains in volume, as illuminated in this quote from CEO David Steiner:

As we've said in the past, we're not focused on getting the most volumes; we're focused on getting the best volumes. We're looking for the best mix of yield and volume to drive income from operations, dollars, and margin.

Source: Waste Management second-quarter 2014 earnings conference call.

This is precisely the type of strategy investors should favor, as it's oriented toward a healthier long-term profit and loss statement. But at least in the near future, holding firm on pricing for significant contracts could lead to contract loss and pressure on the company's top-line revenue -- especially as opportunistic competitors gun for the company's customer relationships.

The risk is that with the incremental increases in quarterly revenue seen over the last couple of years, even moderate contract breakage could translate into earnings misses, pressuring the company's stock. 

Waste Management's business is extremely well diversified among customers -- no customer makes up more than 2% of company revenues, according to Waste Management's latest annual report. Still, last quarter, Waste Management lost two profitable residential contracts, as well as a few less profitable national account contracts, so shareholders should peruse conference call transcripts for the next couple of quarters for updates on any further contractual slippage.

2. Keep an eye on the CPI

That an expanding economy is important to the fortunes of companies like Waste Management seems obvious, but there's a more subtle correlation to economic activity which directly affects WM's performance: the strength or weakness of inflation. Many of the escalations I mentioned for Waste Management's residential, commercial, landfill, and other contracts are based on the CPI, or Consumer Price Index, a broad measure of inflation. When inflation rises, Waste Management's contracts are adjusted upward, improving the yield on its business.

Typically, when economic activity accelerates, inflation tends to climb, as demand for goods and services increases faster than the available money supply. In the current economic recovery, however, the Federal Reserve's monetary policies appear to have muted the impact of inflation. In fact, the trend in the "All Cities" CPI measure, reported monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, stands at 1.7% for the year so far, a very modest increase.

While Waste Management's contract renewals are likely based on subsets of the All Cities CPI index, this top-level gauge gives investors a good picture of the rather lukewarm inflationary environment the company currently faces. Management has named CPI as a headwind in its business for the past several quarters.

3. Wheelabrator revenue and margin may be harder to replace than it seems

In July, Waste Management announced the sale of its Wheelabrator energy business to Energy Capital Partners for close to $2.0 billion. On the company's earnings conference call, CFO Jim Fish outlined some of the benefits of the deal: Waste Management will receive $1.85 billion in cash, pay no tax on the transaction, and enjoy a capital loss carryforward of $300 million, to be utilized against future tax liabilities over the next five years.

As we discussed in a previous article, the company will also lose about 6% of its revenue, and $200 million, or 6.6%, of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). The company plans to replace the lost earnings through small acquisitions, potentially using some of the proceeds from the deal.

There may be room here for the company to stumble, in that if one examines the recent trend of WM's EBITDA quarter by quarter, it's apparent that the waste conglomerate has had difficulty growing earnings over the past five years, exhibiting what's essentially a flat trend:

WM EBITDA (Quarterly) data by YCharts

The outlying dip in the fourth quarter of 2013 includes approximately $483 million of one-time charges the company took to write down the value of its Wheelabrator business. Incidentally, if you're confused by Waste Management's seemingly sky-high P/E ratio of 178 times trailing-12-month earnings, this one-time charge is the culprit: By depressing earnings, it may give the appearance that the stock is overvalued. Adjusting for the $483 million (without regard to tax effects), we find a P/E ratio closer to 37, in the ballpark at least of the recent historical average of 18 times earnings.

The problem Waste Management may face is that despite a culture of cost reduction, as revenue growth has moderated, it's proved difficult for the company to expand earnings. Management intends to replace Wheelabrator earnings through acquisitions, yet in the near term, acquisitions can to lead to higher costs. There are the initial transaction costs to consider, and depending on the company, it can take some time for Waste Management to bring an acquisition in line with its own efficient operating metrics. 

Revenue increased nearly 2.5% between 2012 and 2013, but through two reported quarters of 2014, the top line has grown only 1.4%. Thus, if revenue growth continues to abate, and if it takes some time for the company to replace Wheelabrator earnings, then EBITDA, as well as unadjusted earnings, could suffer slightly. 

Whether they're concerns about employment or health care, just about everyone has money worries. As a matter of fact, 43 percent of U.S. adults — some 100 million people — said not having sufficient "rainy day" funds or emergency savings worries them most. Additionally, 38 percent of Americans are worried about having enough money for retirement, according to the National Foundation for Credit Counseling and the Network Branded Prepaid Card Association's 2013 Financial Literacy Survey.

On one hand, worrying means we acknowledge problems or potential issues with our personal finances, which can motivate us to get on the right path. But on the other hand, excessive worrying might affect our reasoning and give birth to strange money obsessions. Here are our picks for the five weirdest ones that are more common than you'd think.

1. Hoarding Cash
A frugal mind-set is one way to save your pennies, but there's a difference between saving and hoarding cash.

The word "hoarding" brings to mind a bountiful collection of items that serve no real use. And when you think of a hoarder's house, you might envision floor-to-ceiling clutter. But hoarding isn't just about the accumulation of stuff. It's a mental disorder characterized by the inability to part with personal belongings — and sometimes, these personal belongings include our resources.

A sudden, dynamic shift in income can be traumatizing. Unexpected unemployment can have a domino effect resulting in the loss of a home or car. And depending on how bad a situation becomes, a financial low can trigger an unnatural obsession with holding onto money — to the point where sufferers refuse to buy things they really need. They vow never to return to a place of destitution, and then focus all their time and energy on saving and protecting their future — perhaps at a cost to the present.

2. Extreme Couponing
Shows like TLC's "Extreme Couponing" introduced many of us to a phenomena we didn't know existed — the ability to get hundreds of dollars worth of groceries at unbelievable discounts. But if we're not careful, couponing can go from a cost-saving strategy to an addictive sport. Just ask Christy Rakoczy, a former extreme couponer from Tampa, Fla., who describes couponing as "a little bit of a high."

"I think that I was a little more addicted than I should have been. I definitely did spend a lot of time doing it, and I would say it was a priority to do it," she told ABC News.

Couponing saves money, but extreme couponing may open the door to other problems. With the latter, there's the risk of buying things you wouldn't otherwise purchase; and since becoming a pro involves a serious time commitment, a couponing habit can consume time that's better spent on other pursuits.

3. Compulsive Giver
Maybe you've had a lot of success or good fortune in your life. You worked hard in college, received a lucrative job offer, and now you're enjoying the so-called good life — financially speaking. You should be happy — but if your friends and family haven't enjoyed similar success, personal guilt and shame might overshadow accomplishments.

In an effort to soothe a guilty conscious, you might resort to dipping into your pocket and constantly giving to your loved ones. This includes anything from regular financial support to extravagant (and unnecessary) gifts. And yes, a giving attitude is far better than being greedy or stingy with your money. But if you don't get a handle on these emotions, irrational guilt might fuel an unhealthy obsession with giving and you could become a financial enabler.

4. Financial Narcissist
A narcissistic personality is someone with an exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement; and because these individuals crave admiration, a preoccupation with improving their image often causes them to seek power or money.

According To Sam Vaknin, author and expert on narcissist personality disorder, "money is another word for love in the narcissist's emotional vocabulary." If the narcissist was deprived of love in early childhood, he may seek money as a substitute for love. But the obsession with money doesn't stop here. The narcissist might feel that "he's entitled to other people's money," and "grandiose thinking leads him to believe that he should have, or does have, more money than he actually possesses," which can trigger reckless spending and gambling addictions.

5. Workaholism
If you want a roof over your head and food on the table, you've got to work for it. Your friends might jokingly call you a workaholic if you're passionate about your job; however, there's a difference between loving your work and being obsessed with your job.

People who enjoy their work can usually strike a healthy work-life balance, and their happiness isn't tied to a job. On the other hand, workaholics' obsession with work stems from the belief "that more money is going to make them and their family happier," according to Psychology Today. This rarely happens. Instead of finding happiness, some workaholics get stuck in a cycle of working and working, and they never fully enjoy contentment or satisfaction.

If you are still feeling a little overwhelmed and not quite settled in to your first year of college just yet, you are certainly not alone. Once you get your educational sea legs, however, you'll be wise to start planning how to make the best use of the next four years. Need some pointers? We asked three of our Foolish contributors to share their wisdom.

Amanda Alix: Making the most of your college years includes planning ahead for the day that you will begin interviewing for your dream job. These days, employers want job applicants to have experience right out of college - and internships are a great way to show that you have the skills and ambition that companies desire.

When it comes to hiring, internships trump all other factors applicants bring to the interview, and carry much more weight with employers than a graduate's GPA.

The popularity of internships among employers has caused them to flourish. Once, they were offered only during the summer school hiatus; now, they are offered year-round.

If you just started college, you may think you have plenty of time to think about internships, particularly since they are so plentiful. You will do well to begin looking around as early as possible, however, since the closer the internship is tied to your eventual choice of employment, the more heft it will likely have with prospective employers.

What is the single best thing you can do to ensure that you are eligible for the very best internships in your major? Knuckle down, and get good grades - beginning with the very first semester of your college career.

Jordan Wathen: Summer classes are an overlooked opportunity to graduate sooner, and lower the cost of a college degree. Many state schools offer reduced tuition and fees during the summer months to boost enrollment and lower their cost per student, saving you money. If taken with a full-time schedule in the fall and spring, they'll also help you graduate earlier, allowing you to enter the workforce sooner.

Understand that these benefits can come at a cost. For one, summer classes are faster, covering a full semester's worth of material in as little as four to six weeks. Thus, students would be wise to enroll in summer classes only for topics that they know well.

Additionally, the lower cost of summer school is usually due to a lack of financial aid. In many cases, students will have exhausted all financial aid available to them through the school year. Or, in other cases, students find it difficult to take enough credit hours during the summer term to qualify for federal aid programs.

However, to those paying with scholarship money or out of their own pocket, summer classes can be a way to reduce the overall cost of a college education. And don't forget the advantage of graduating early, which can easily add up to tens of thousands of dollars in additional lifetime income.

Matthew Frankel: One of the most dangerous pitfalls to avoid in college is credit card debt. Despite the fact that student loan debt seems to grab most of the headlines these days, the pursuit of college students by credit card companies is alive and well. In fact, I attended a college football game last weekend, and Capital One had a booth set up right next to the student section offering free t-shirts to anyone who fills out an application.

And, despite the relatively lower debt totals, credit card debt can be even more dangerous to your financial well-being than student loans.

Let's say that you owe $10,000 in credit card debt and $35,000 in student loan debt at graduation. Well, Federal student loans distributed to undergraduate students currently come with a 4.66% fixed interest rate, compared with the average APR of 21.4% that comes with student credit cards. Well, your student debt, although much higher, would actually accumulate interest at a slower rate ($1,631 vs. $2,140 per year).

Also, don't forget that there are programs in placed designed to make student loans more affordable, such as income-based repayment programs, deferments, and forgiveness programs. No such programs exist for credit card debt.