BioMarin taught big biotech companies a thing or two about making money this year.  Here are three lessons large competitors likely learned watching BioMarin succeed in treating rare and ultra-rare diseases in 2013.

1. You can make money treating rare diseases.
Big companies have historically ignored developing therapies for uncommon disease, deciding their small patient pools weren't large enough to move the needle on sales and profit. But BioMarin has carved out a successful franchise of drugs addressing the rarest of conditions.

The company's four commercialized drugs may not generate a lot of revenue individually, but combined they produced $137 million in third-quarter sales -- a run rate of over a half billion dollars in revenue a year.

BioMarin's best seller is Naglazyme, a drug used to treat Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome, or MPS VI -- an ultra rare lysosomal storage disease affecting just one in 250,000 to 600,000 newborns.

The MPS VI market may be too small for big companies, but it's the perfect size for BioMarin.  Naglazyme produced $63 million in third quarter sales thanks to long lasting orphan drug patent protection and a $365,000 a year price tag  

BioMarin's Kuvan similarly serves a small number of patients. The drug treats phenylketonuria, or PKU, a condition affecting just one in about every 10,000 Caucasians. Yet BioMarin still managed to generate $43 million in sales from the drug in the third quarter, nearly 20% more than a year ago.

The company collaborated with Sanofi's  Genzyme unit to develop a third specialty drug, Aldurazyme. That enzyme replacement drug treats another lysosomal storage disease, MPS1, otherwise known as Hurler syndrome. MPS1 occurs in just 1 in 100,000 births and produced sales of $23 million for BioMarin in the third quarter.

And BioMarin's Firdapse, sold in the European Union for Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome, or LEMS, addresses an autoimmune disorder most commonly associated with lung cancer. There are just 3.4 cases of LEMS per million people worldwide and sales of Firdapse totaled $4 million last quarter, 13.9% more than a year ago.

2. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
BioMarin's success has gotten the attention of plenty of people. Cheap money and strong equity markets are providing a torrent of financing for innovative developers tackling niche diseases.

Some of that financing is coming from the biggest players, such as Celgene , who have stepped in to collaborate on rare diseases with a handful of companies including Acceleron and Epizyme. Both of those companies have won important orphan drug status for key compounds in development.

Money is also flowing from venture capitalists, who are increasingly hunting across academia and non-profits for promising orphan drug candidates. One of them is Cydan, an accelerator backed by private equity firm New Enterprise Associates and drug giant Pfizer.

And small biotechs are also finding a welcoming audience on Wall Street. Heading into late October, some 39 small-cap biotech stocks -- many focused on orphan drugs -- had issued IPOs -- raising a combined $3 billion from investors. That marks the best year for biotech IPOs since the turn of the millennium.

3. Buying successful orphan drug companies comes at a steep price.
BioMarin was one of the most rumored acquisition targets of 2013, with some of the biggest companies in the world, such as Roche and Sanofi, reportedly vying to buy it.

That helped push BioMarin's market cap to nearly $10 billion, or roughly 20 times annualized third quarter sales. But that jaw dropping valuation may not be as out of whack as it sounds. After all, Amgen was willing to pay 17 times sales to acquire Onyx Pharmaceuticals and its two orphan drugs Kyprolis and Nexavar this past summer. Amgen was willing to pay the lofty price because Onyx's pipeline opportunity appeared to have a long runway thanks to Kyprolis and Oprozomib, which is in phase 1b trials.

BioMarin may be similarly attractive, given Vimizim, used to treat Morquio A, recently won support from a key FDA advisory panel in November. BioMarin also has promising compounds in trials for Pompe disease, chondroplasia, Batten disease, and breast cancer.

Foolish final thoughts
Thanks in part to BioMarin, the race to develop new therapies for rare disease is building momentum across companies both big and small. That's driving more money into young companies through partnerships and supporting much larger acquisitions. It remains to be seen if BioMarin will find itself linking up with a suitor in 2014. But if it doesn't, a stable and growing franchise of orphan drugs suggests BioMarin is nicely positioned to go it alone.

Good news, Foolish investors: Kiplinger's believes that 2014 will offer up another great year of stock returns. According to the company's 2014 investing outlook:

"Another year of gains will be supported by stronger economic and corporate underpinnings, and, just as important, improving sentiment among investors. By most measures, stocks are fairly priced, if not bargains. Given expected earnings growth of nearly 10% in 2014, we think stock prices could rise that much and perhaps more." 

Hmmm, with statements like that, it's hard to argue against putting as much money in the stock market right now as you can.

Looking for specific stocks to invest in?

Kiplinger's believes that LED-lighting specialist Cree and insurance specialist Tower Group are great buys right now. Kiplinger's says that Cree's energy-efficient light bulbs are only used by 3% of the U.S. population and that the government will help push sales higher, while it argues that investors have overreacted to Tower Group's questionable loss reserves and buying today's 17% dividend is a good deal.

Of course, 2015 might not be as rosy, but we'll get the notice in time to take our money out, right?

Not so fast
I'll get to the prediction guaranteed to come true in a second.  But first, it's important to acknowledge that we all -- myself included -- fall victim to using a new year as an excuse to make bold predictions. It's fine to use the year's end to check in with your investments -- it's an easy marker to use to remind you to do that.

But making predictions based on what will happen in the stock market between now and when we make a full revolution around the sun is a little bit silly.

It's also a practice in futility. Take a look at Kiplinger's performance since 2007 at predicting how the market would fare in the next year.

Source: Kiplinger's 

Taken as a whole, Kiplinger's predictions would have left me with returns of 70% since the beginning of 2007. But that's not the case at all. An investment in the S&P 500 in January 2007 would now be up just 26% -- less than half what was progressively predicted.

It's hard to blame Kiplinger's for putting out these types of predictions; they make for great headlines. The magazine actually provides ranges, too; I simply took the midpoint of such ranges. And since as far back as 1871, the annualized return of the S&P 500 is 8.9%. Kiplinger's took the conservative route, with predicted annualized returns of 7.9%

It really isn't fair to pick on Kiplinger's alone, either. A bevy of Wall Street banks do the same thing, as well as Money magazine, and Standard and Poor's. Oppenheimer  believes the S&P 500 will finish 2014 at...wait for it...a value of 2,014. Heck, we like doing it here at the Fool, too.

A better way to look at the situation
I, too, will likely be putting out articles about stocks in 2014. Again, checking in with certain investments on a yearly basis is a good idea -- and there's nothing wrong with doing that come December.

When it comes to making predictions, however, it's important to be very explicit about the context in which I'm doing it. I like to focus on specific stocks. When you hear me telling you that Company X is a great pick for 2014, I'm also saying I think it's a great investment through 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 as well.

I've learned that that's what successful investors do: They take the long view. And the long view is, at the very least, three years in length.

When it comes to making predictions on how the overall market will do in 2014, there's only one thing I -- or anyone else, for that matter  -- can say with any level of confidence: It will either go up, go down, or stay the same.  Anyone who claims to know more than that is just fooling themselves.

A great stock at this time...which happens to be at the precipice of 2014

Investors love stocks that consistently beat the Street without getting ahead of their fundamentals and risking a meltdown. The best stocks offer sustainable market-beating gains, with robust and improving financial metrics that support strong price growth. Does Suncor Energy fit the bill? Let's look at what its recent results tell us about its potential for future gains.

What we're looking for
The graphs you're about to see tell Suncor's story, and we'll be grading the quality of that story in several ways:

• Growth: Are profits, margins, and free cash flow all increasing?
• Valuation: Is share price growing in line with earnings per share?
• Opportunities: Is return on equity increasing while debt to equity declines?
• Dividends: Are dividends consistently growing in a sustainable way?

What the numbers tell you
Now, let's look at Suncor's key statistics:

SU Total Return Price data by YCharts

Source: YCharts.
*Period begins at end of Q3 2010.

SU Return on Equity (TTM) data by YCharts

Source: YCharts.
*Period begins at end of Q3 2010.

How we got here and where we're going
Things don't look good for Suncor in its second assessment, as this Canadian oil sands producer has dropped four of the eight passing grades it first earned last year, to finish with a middle-of-the-pack four out of nine possible passing grades for 2013. The company just missed out on earning a passing grade for revenue growth because of weaker domestic oil prices, which is thanks to a combination of increased oil and gas production in North America and a long-running reduction in petroleum use after the recession. The paradox of more production but weaker profitability hurt Suncor elsewhere as well, but it's at least holding both revenue and free cash flow in positive territory these days. How can Suncor overcome macroeconomic issues beyond its control and again become one of the stronger stocks on the market? Let's dig a little deeper to find out.

Suncor recently posted market-topping third-quarter results, as it's produced staggering growth in production from oil sands over the past decade. Fool contributor Rupert Hargreaves points out that producing oil from the Canadian sands has become more profitable thanks to scale and efficiency improvements, but investors have overlooked this because of the persistently high cost of oil sands production. Suncor's oil sands production costs were roughly $35 per barrel in the third quarter, far higher than supermajors ExxonMobil and Chevron, which averaged production costs of $10.50 and $8.70 per barrel, respectively, from more diverse exploration operations five years ago.

Fool analyst Taylor Muckerman notes that Suncor has been eyeing other unconventional reserves, such as offshore oil, to boost their production capacities. Suncor has around 6.5 billion barrels of recoverable resources including several quality assets in Athabasca along with a 12% working interest in oil sands joint-venture Syncrude. These holdings should last for more than three decades at current rates of production, which makes Suncor one of the most consistent long-term oil sands investments. The company also aims to boost its production capacity by 100,000 barrels per day through investments in low-risk projects. Suncor's should also generate strong cash flow from its sand mining operations at the Fort Hills and Joslyn project, which boast overall production capacities of 180,000 and 100,000 barrels per day, respectively. The company's recently introduced Autonomous Haulage System should help it cut down operational costs through greater fuel efficiencies, less wear and tear, and more volume hauled per mining vehicle, which will be run without a human driver.

However, ExxonMobil recently bought out a 226,000-acre position in Alberta, which will expand its presence in Canadian oil sands through subsidiary Imperial Oil , and which more importantly signals further supermajor approval of the sands' long-term value. Imperial Oil itself has recently started production on its Kearl oil sands project, which boasts 4.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves. This surge in production from other large oil sands producers could undermine Suncor's growth by crimping prices, unless of course international demand outstrips the available global supply in the near future.

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway recently saw its stake in Suncor grow to $644 million thanks to rising share prices, and it's also accumulated a $3.4 billion position in ExxonMobil amid record North American oil and gas production. Fool contributor Tyler Crowe points out that Suncor and other Canadian oil sands producers currently lack pipeline and refining infrastructure, which has Canada's heavy crude trading at a $15 to $20 discount to WTI. However, Berkshire Hathway's Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway could provide relief from transportation constraints with new terminals in the area, should Buffett decide to further support his investments north of the border.

Putting the pieces together
Today, Suncor Energy has some of the qualities that make up a great stock, but no stock is truly perfect. Digging deeper can help you uncover the answers you need to make a great buy -- or to stay away from a stock that's going nowhere.

KiOR is no stranger to problems. The biofuel company has a history of production well below the estimates it has given shareholders. When Bill Gates made a token investment, it seemed like things might finally be turning around. Then in an SEC filing, it was disclosed that CFO John Karnes abruptly quit in a fashion reminiscent of the Ruby Tuesday exodus of executives and in contrast to the advance notice the CFO of Suncor gave his company.

KiOR 8-K SEC Filing
Karnes gave his resignation notice to KiOR on Dec. 1. Two days later, he was gone. There was no new hotshot CFO coming in to replace him. No publicly displayed resignation letter. No press release thanking him for his service. No explanation that he was retiring or got offered a job elsewhere. And the worst part is - there was nothing in the filing that contained the customary language letting the world know that there were no disagreements. Typically, if there is no press release, you would at least see something to the tune of "There were no disagreements between Mr. Karnes and the company on any matter relating to operations, financial controls, policies or procedures." There was none of that.

The Suncor way
On Nov. 29, Suncor announced the resignation of CFO Bart Demosk. The press release explained that he is "leaving his position to pursue an opportunity in another industry." CEO Steve Williams stated, "Bart's contributions to our company will be missed." We appreciate his efforts on behalf of Suncor and wish him well as he embarks on this next stage in his career." It was a very classy farewell, and he gave a full month's advance notice.

Suncor is a successful company. Last quarter the company had $0.95 per share in operating earnings and $1.69 per share in cash flow from operations. There doesn't appear to be a cause for concern.

Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday
In October, Senior VP Robert LeBoeuf and chairman of the board Matthew A. Drapkin quit within a week of each other. Matthew A. Drapkin dumped almost all of his stock even though the price was near 52-week lows. Just as with KiOR, Ruby Tuesday offered no press release thanking them for their service, and no explanation was given.

The Ruby Tuesday resignations came soon after the company reported terrible results. Sales were down 11.6%, same-store sales were down 11.4% at company locations, and the net loss was $21.5 million or $0.36 per share.

KiOR financials
Similar to Ruby Tuesday, the CFO resignation comes just weeks after KiOR reported third-quarter results. Though KiOR reported record fuel production of a tad over 300,000 gallons, it was barely within the original guidance range that KiOR was expected to reach a full quarter prior. Total revenue was $720,000 with a net loss of $43.1 million.

KiOR is already defending itself in a class action suit for the missed second-quarter guidance. For November and December, KiOR is forecasting similar production levels to October.

Did something go wrong that will cause KiOR to miss its forecasts again? And is that the reason the CFO left? We won't know for sure probably until the results are reported early next year. Speaking of next year, in the previous conference call, now-ex-CFO John H. Karnes stated, "We're not in a position to provide any forward-looking information at all for 2014 at this point."

Foolish final thoughts
Uncertainty is the enemy of Foolish investors. In the case of KiOR, that uncertainty seems pervasive. Investors who are interested in KiOR may want to at least wait until better, clearer information comes out before jumping on board. After all, its CFO seemed to have jumped out very quickly. Why should you be in a rush to jump in?

Robert Hohman is co-founder and CEO of Glassdoor, an online community where employees and job-seekers post anonymous information on salaries, company reviews, interview questions, and more, providing a valuable insider's glimpse of what it's like to work at a company. Hohman was on Expedia's original team, and helped take it public in 1999. He most recently served as president of Expedia's discount division, Hotwire.

Some companies are disgruntled by poor reviews from former employees, but Hohman thinks today's users are savvy enough to look at the data and take outliers in stride. In this video segment he also explains how Glassdoor works to get data from a representative cross-section of employees, not just those with extreme opinions -- whether positive or negative.

A full transcript follows the video.

Tom Gardner: A few CEOs that I've talked to about Glassdoor have said, "It feels to me like there's some ax-grinding going on. There are some employees that are out there that didn't work out and they're upset, and they're taking it out a little bit on us."

I said, "But that does reflect something about your company. It reflects that you made a recruiting mistake, up front, or it reflects that you made a mistake on the way out."

The ideal scenario for somebody who didn't work out at the company would be that they would sit down and give the company a 5.0 and say, "I had an incredible learning experience. It wasn't the right place for me. I've moved on, and I've learned a lot from it." I know that may seem very idealistic and almost impossible -- but there you are -- the example of Caterpillar , that actually gets through tough times with a lot of people and people end up favorably reviewing the company even though it had to make difficult decisions.

Robert Hohman: I think that's right. A company of a certain size, it's not going to be able to please absolutely everyone, obviously. There will always be people who have bad experiences. But the important thing, and our position on this, is that's their story and their story is important to be told, and is a valid experience that should be a part of the community. We want that to be just one voice of the many voices telling their experience of the company.

Users have been trained how to use social media and services like ours through years of using TripAdvisor , Yelp , Amazon  Book Reviews. They look for patterns. They expect to see one person that's unhappy to every nine that's happy, and things like that.

In fact, we have data that shows that the data actually becomes more believable when there's at least a couple of data points that are outside the norm, because otherwise the data set just looks too cohesive. Embracing all of those voices is very important, I think.

Gardner: One of our members, Dave, asks, "Who is engaging, on the employee side? Do you have any read on whether it's the extremes? You're getting the most positive and the most negative? Is there anything to suggest that you're getting a sample that covers all, or is it a blend of extremes?"

Hohman: We architected the site and the collection mechanisms to try and get as flat a curve and distribution of collection as we could. We call this, in the industry, the "bimodality" problem. The problem is you have people who either love their job or hate their job contributing, theoretically. If you didn't do anything about it, that's the fear; that you'd have this bimodal distribution.

We've taken various steps to flatten that and get a nice, even distribution of data. Basically the way we've done it is we require people who use the service -- after a couple of page views or minutes using the service -- we say "It looks like you're getting value from the service. Please tell your story."

That applies to people who are satisfied, unsatisfied. They might just be browsing the site looking at salaries, trying to negotiate their raise, and they're thrilled with their company. The result is that we get a nice, even distribution.

We know this because it turns out about 69% of companies on the site are rated neutral or higher -- so, if anything, we skew slightly above average in terms of rating -- and the average CEO approval rating on the site is 69% so, again, we skew relatively high on those numbers.

Gardner: What is the average company rating?

Hohman: The average company rating is 3.2.

Gardner: 3.2, OK, got it.

The four most dangerous words in investing are said to be "it's different this time." Someone uses them at the peak of every bubble to justify ignoring lessons of the past. 

I recently wrote a few articles about why I think the stock market is overvalued as the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 are less than 1% off their all time highs. One of the reasons was that corporate profit margins have reached unprecedented levels, and I expect they will revert to the mean, challenging profits going forward. Many people have once again said "this time is different," that you can't compare today to the long-term average, since U.S. companies' overseas profits have grown dramatically. Overseas profits have indeed grown, but it doesn't fully explain what's going on in the United States. It's not different this time. We're seeing increasing evidence that margins will revert over the next few years through higher wages.

Let's take a closer look.

Record margins
U.S. corporate profit margins as a percentage of the economy sit at all-time highs and 70% above the long-term average. This includes both the domestic and foreign profits of U.S.-owned companies and their foreign subsidiaries.

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve.

Why are margins so high? U.S. companies are making more profits abroad than ever before.

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve.

So why is it not different this time? Foreign companies are also making more profits in the U.S. than ever before.

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis tracks foreign companies' profits made in the U.S. and separates them to calculate U.S. corporate profits. The BEA has data going back only to 1948, so our analysis must stop there. Still, going by the data available since then and employing some basic math, you can calculate the profits that both U.S. and foreign companies make in the United States.

First, corporate profits made in the U.S., whether by U.S. or foreign companies, are at their highest percentage of the U.S. economy since World War II ended.

Sources: BEA, author's calculations.

Total corporate profits in the U.S. are currently at 8.5% of GNP, 60% above their long-term average of 5.3%. Besides 2006, the year before the financial crisis, the last time corporate profits in the U.S. were this high was in 1950, when companies were benefiting from the post-war boom. However, the boom quickly ended with the enactment of the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950 at the start of the Korean War. That law established a top corporate tax rate of 77%.

With companies taking a larger slice of the U.S. economic pie, someone else must be getting a smaller portion.

As you might have guessed, employee compensation as a percentage of GNP is near an all-time low.

Compensation currently sits at 51.8% of GNP -- 3 percentage points below the long-term average of 54.9%. Three percentage points might not sound like much, but to put this in perspective, if compensation were at the historical average, employees would earn $530 billion more this year.

The low wages consumers are earning look unsustainable over the longer term. And, by definition, if something is unsustainable, it will end.

There are two things that I expect to happen. One is that as the unemployment rate gets lower and jobs get harder to fill, especially for higher-wage workers, wages will rise as companies compete for workers.

At the lower end of the workforce, perhaps, it will be the government that's the key force in moving employee compensation up as a percentage of the economy. Earlier this month, President Obama promised to focus on decreasing economic inequality in the U.S. in his final three years in office. The president put forward many ideas, chief among them a call for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which has remained at $7.25 an hour since 2008. While the president didn't include specific numbers, Senate Democrats put forward a plan that would raise the minimum wage in steps to $10.10 and then index it to inflation. While $10.10 still doesn't sound like much, it is a 40% increase.

So over the medium term, I believe compensation will revert to the mean and we will see wage inflation, stressing corporate margins.

Foolish bottom line
While U.S. companies are making record profits abroad, earnings in the U.S. look cyclically high. Corporate profit margins are just one piece of why I think the S&P 500 is overvalued. You can read the rest of my argument here.

That said, predicting where the broad market will go in the short term is a game for fools (with a lowercase "F"). Stocks can always get more overvalued. When things get frothy, it's worthwhile to build up some cash on the side for when prices inevitably fall.

The Motley Fool has always taught that Foolish (capital "F") investors don't invest in the broad market. We invest in great companies at good prices, continue to educate ourselves, and hold on to our great companies over the long term. The market will fluctuate (sometimes massively), but great companies will win out over the long run.

On October 4, 1957, Russia became the first nation on earth to put an object in orbit around the earth, when it lofted the 58-cm diameter Sputnik satellite into low-earth orbit. 56 years later, Sputnik is kaput -- but Russia is still No. 1 ... in orbital space junk.

That's according to Russia's own Central Research Institute for Engineering, which put out a report over the weekend detailing the number of pieces of "orbital debris" that the leading spacefaring nations have thrown up there in the skies. Despite being now only the No. 3 nation on earth (behind the U.S. and China) in terms of how many satellites it has in orbit, Russia continues to lead the way in turning space into a big ol' floating junkyard. According to CRIE, there are 6,125 big hunks of space junk in orbit today that are attributable to Russian spacefaring activity. That's as compared to "only" 3,672 from China, and 4,627 from the U.S.

These pieces of debris are "softball-sized" or larger. According to NASA, there are about 500,000 pieces of "space junk" in orbit, once you scale down to items the size of marble -- about 5,500 tons of the stuff in total. And with the average piece of orbital debris traveling at upwards of 22,000 mph, even microscopic particles can do serious damage when they hit something -- so you definitely don't want to get hit by a marble, much less a softball.

Who's going to clean up this mess?
Russia's intergalactic litterbug tendencies are a primary reason why the U.S. Air Force is looking for a contractor to build a "space fence" to try and track all this stuff. Sometime in the next few months, USAF is supposed to choose between Lockheed Martin and Raytheon , and hire one of these companies to build a new tracking system for the purpose. (Longer-term solutions to actually clean up the mess, for example, by sending up robots to nudge the junk into terminal orbits where it can burn up in Earth's atmosphere, are farther out ).

Let's hope the Air Force decides quickly, because already, the orbital junkyard is becoming a big problem, and a hazard to the many countries, and companies, who have valuable assets in space. To cite just a few examples:

• July 1996: In the first confirmed case of "death by space junk", a French Cerise satellite is struck and damaged by an orbiting Ariane third stage rocket -- also French.
• February 2009: The U.S. Iridium 33 satellite, owned by sat-phone operator Iridium Communications , gets hit by dead Russian military satellite Cosmos 2252. That collision in turn unleashed 2,000 new pieces  of orbital shrapnel -- a thousandfold increase.
• January 2012: The International Space Station is forced to fire thrusters to dodge a piece of debris from China's Fengyun 1C satellite, which China had blown up five years earlier in an anti-satellite missile test. Since then, ISS has had to maneuver around pieces of Fengyun 1C several times more.
• March 2012: Fears that a piece of debris from a Russian Cosmos satellite might strike the International Space Station force six crew members to man their escape capsules, in case they might have to abandon ship.
• January 2013: A piece of the Chinese Fengyun 1C finally strikes home, slamming into Russia's small Ball Lens In The Space (BLITS) retroreflector satellite.
• May 2013: A piece of a Soviet-era Tsyklon-3 launch vehicle took out Ecuador's only orbiting satellite, the NEE-1.
• Earlier this year -- no one's quite sure when -- ISS astronauts noticed a 0.25 inch diameter "bullet hole" in the station's solar arrays. It was apparently caused by a microscopic piece of space junk, or perhaps a passing (naturally occurring) "micrometeoroid."

Whatever the actual cause of that last incident, it illustrated the fact that it's not just multi-million-dollar satellites that are put at risk by this growing problem of space junk. The ISS can bob, and the ISS can weave. But one big piece of orbital debris, traveling the wrong trajectory at the wrong speed and the wrong time, could render the entire $150 billion  International Space Station as kaput as Sputnik.

This is a problem we need to get fixed, and soon.

Every year, PNC Financial Services Group's PNC Wealth Management compiles a clever rundown of how much it could cost to purchase "The Twelve Days of Christmas" gifts for true loves. For most of us, the $27,393 total price tag to buy one of each gift this year sounds outrageous, but the relatively low year-over-year price increase indicates low inflation. But stacked up against recent history and in the view of the real economy, does it really?

Just for starters, we can glean that anemic price increases reflect retailers' weakness this year. It's going to be a tough holiday season by many accounts and many retailers won't be able to coax higher prices for items far less expensive than pipers piping. Oddly enough, though, if we were inclined to indebt ourselves for the song's gift list, we'd pay more for the 12 items now than we would have during the 2007 housing bubble top.

This could make us all wonder about whether to buy into the ongoing bull market. Is the real economy really all that strong after all these years, as the market's levels would indicate?

Investing in our true loves
Let's think about the clever index's data through a different lens. One might think that the prices on the items would have been astronomical in 2007, before the housing bubble burst. Americans in a wide swath of society could afford a lot more stuff when credit flowed freely and consumers used their houses as ATMs.

According to USA TODAY, PNC's managing executive of investments, Jim Dunigan, noted of this year's index, "We were surprised to see such a large increase from a year ago, given the overall benign inflation rate in the U.S." The reported 1.7% increase in the Consumer Price Index does sound minor.

Let's flash back to 2007, though, when the housing bubble and consumer-driven gluttony were still in euphoric swing. Buying just one of each item would have cost $19,507 in 2007, so we would pay 40% more to check off the romantic list today.

Granted, the clever holiday list includes complexities. For example, since 1984, the average prices of the items have increased by 2.9%. While some prices have remained stable, others have leapt.

For example, a $19.95 pear tree in 1984 now sports a $184 price tag. Wait till the post-holiday markdowns. Seven swans for $7K sounds nutty, but American consumers would pay the same price now.

The bubble years were by definition unsustainable and artificial, of course, and the economy did need to correct. However, it's added up to an extremely painful situation for many Americans, and it's not something to gloss over when thinking about one's investments.

Retail's reality check
Retail can be a strong indicator of what's going on with real American consumers.

In November, Wal-Mart warned about its outlook for holiday season sales, lowering its estimates. Maybe reports of Wal-Mart's solid Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales will save the day for that retailer; apparently towels are hotter this year than five golden rings, since some shoppers reportedly fought over them. Of course, that also says something about the types of things Americans want at bargains, and that's a far more basic item to fight over than the traditional hot items that have spurred altercations in the past, like electronics.

Like Wal-Mart, many other retailers have warned about their outlooks, and that tells us a lot about this cutthroat holiday season. In fact, margins are already plummeting as retailers desperately seek to offer rock-bottom deals to holiday shoppers. In some stores, inventories are building because retailers miscalculated the demand for some merchandise.

Deep discounters aren't the only ones offering even deeper discounts to boost holiday sales. Just this week, American Eagle Outfitters cut its profit guidance for the tail end of 2013. The retailer is slashing prices, which will likely turn out to be a strong theme this holiday season. The teen sector is struggling overall, showing weakness in a segment that used to represent a lot of discretionary spending.

The bull market's swan song?
These days, the items in the iconic song aren't in great demand, and that's good, since most of us certainly couldn't afford them for a dozen days of charm. (And of course, these days, most true loves would find most of these gifts downright weird.)

The sad thing is, many Americans can't afford much at all this year, and will be pinching their pennies. Consumer spending makes up the lion's share of our economy and the holiday season is usually the best time to coax spending. We can learn a lot about the consumer by gauging what they're spending.

We've got plenty of signs of overall weakness continuing to drag on Americans. However, those who invest in stocks may not be taking the current reality very seriously. We're in the midst of a bull market with no end in sight, and caution is in short supply.

But investors should proceed with caution right now. Spending $7,000 on the full gift set of swimming swans is likely a poor investment for most of us. Many of the weaker companies whose stocks are trading at high valuations or tanking on fundamental business concerns are poor holiday investments as well.

With the market leaping higher by 25%, this has been a great year for stock market investors. Of course, individual stock performances varied wildly around that average.

Today I'm taking a look at three restaurant stocks that sizzled in 2013: Wendy's , Chipotle Mexican Grill , and Buffalo Wild Wings . As you can see from the chart below, each of these companies trounced the broader market's impressive run this year.

WEN data by YCharts

Chipotle is back
Fueling Chipotle's bounce was the fact that it returned to industry-leading revenue growth in 2013. After seeing its comparable store sales, or comps, decelerate for six straight quarters, the burrito slinger rebounded in the second half of the year.

 Source: Quarterly financial filings.

That 6.2% growth figure for the third quarter is impressive in at least two ways. First, it's well above what rival restaurants are notching. Panera Bread, as just one example, saw its comps grow by 1.7% last quarter.

And second, unlike in Panera's case, Chipotle managed that sales growth without the benefit of higher menu prices. That means that the company is winning additional revenue the hard way: through increased customer traffic alone. And it also points to sales and profit growth ahead, when Chipotle finally does decide to raise its prices in line with higher food costs.

Wendy's is morphing

Pretzel bacon burger. Image source: Wendy's.

Meanwhile, Wendy's path to outperformance had a lot less to do with its sales growth. In fact, Wall Street expects the fast-food chain to actually shrink revenue by 15% next year. But that's because it's in the middle of a transformation aimed at making the company more profitable. Wendy's is selling hundreds of company-owned restaurants to franchisees, which will drop its ownership level from 22% down to 15% of the store base. The trade-off to losing the revenue from those stores will be increased profitability, stronger cash flow, and a more predictable revenue stream that comes from additional franchisees, and not just customers.

Of course, Wendy's transformation plans wouldn't be worth much if the brand wasn't growing. The news on that front has been good, as well. Comps grew by a solid 3.2% last quarter, boosted by the hit pretzel bacon cheeseburger. Wendy's is hoping to build on that momentum with more pretzel-based products, as well as with investments in modernizing its stores.

B-Dubs is taking flight
But Buffalo Wild Wings takes top honors in 2013, as it stormed out to a 100% return this year. The company accomplished that feat by turning a huge weakness into a major strength.

Last year, B-Dubs' profitability was hammered by a spike in chicken wing prices, which was compounded by the fact that it sold its wings by the piece, while purchasing them by the pound. Because farmers have also been raising heavier poultry, those two trends sent B-Dubs' per-wing costs higher by 90% in some cases.

But the company has now transitioned its menu onto a weight-based ordering system, and customers have embraced the change. B-Dubs saw its comps jump by 4.8% in the third quarter, and its earnings spiked higher by almost 70%. Looking ahead, investors can expect continued profit growth as chicken wing prices moderate and new restaurant locations come online.

Foolish bottom line
These are three very different restaurant chains, and each took its own path to stellar outperformance in 2013. But they still shared a few important characteristics.

For one, they have a product, and brand, that is resonating with customers. Next, they have a management team that's skillfully guiding them through difficult terrain. And finally, these companies surprised Wall Street by succeeding in an industry that lots of investors had decided to avoid this year.

It's no secret that student loan debt makes it harder for young people to get ahead. It turns out that their burden is even worse than we thought -- and, in fact, it's bad for anyone with a financial interest in real estate.

Surrender your diploma and all hope here
Since 2003 the numbers of students taking on debt has climbed from 25% to 43%. The graduating class of 2012 is looking at an average $29,400 in debt, up from $26,600 for the class of 2011.

Those debts are keeping young people from buying homes, cars, and even has couples delaying marriage and having children. In fact, for the first time in decades young people without student loan debt are buying more cars and houses than those with student debt. 

According to an April Federal Reserve Bank of New York study, "As a result of tighter underwriting standards, higher delinquency rates, and lower credit scores, consumers with educational debt may have more limited access to housing and auto debt and, as a result, more limited options in the housing and vehicle markets, despite their comparatively high earning potential."

A Federal Reserve infographic paints the bleak picture.

Source: Federal Reserve and AIPCA

But why should you worry? Unless you just graduated from college, chances are you don't have a $30,000 IOU looming.

Well, unfortunately the plight of Generation Debt has consequences for all of us, especially investors.

Bypassing the white picket fence
Economists are concerned that an entire generation of renters has been born. This is a disturbing trend for the housing market, with the National Association of Home Builders going so far as to say that it is dampening demand for new homes.  

We're already seeing the damage that this negative trend wreaks on homebuilders with the most exposure to starter homes, especially in suburban and exurban areas. Those homebuilders are KB Home and Beazer Homes .

Beazer Homes recently reported its first profitable six-month period since 2006. It also revealed that most of its new land spending, 70%, was concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic, California, Florida, and Texas.  Still, this homebuilder has almost no presence near some of the best job markets for Millennials: Austin, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle.

KB Home is off considerably from its 52 week high of $25.14. The company does, however, have some exposure to these Millennial hubs, with communities in Denver, the Bay Area and Austin. It is a slightly better proposition than Beazer with a 0.60% yield and a forward earnings multiple of 13.29, but both builders have a high short interest of over 35%.

So, what about when these Millennials pay off their debts and become more established? Surely homeownership is in the cards someday, right?

It's complicated. Once upon a time the white picket fence was the dream, but now it's being cast as a prison. Todd M. Schoenberger, Founder of LandColt Capital LP, penned a controversial article for CNBC explaining why homeownership is for suckers. He cited rising mortgage and property tax rates and increasing costs of home maintenance should be deterrents to new buyers.

Millennials agree and have a sneaking suspicion that homeownership is a "sucker's paradise" after growing up with long memories of family job losses or money troubles.

How to cash in on "Generation Rent"
What's bad news for home builders and real estate agents needn't be bad news for investors. You've got options.

Playing to a generation of renters is the strength of AvalonBay Communities , a REIT owning 164 multifamily (apartment) communities located near metropolitan hubs.  Avalon Bay also benefits from some other Millennial trends: their exodus into urban centers where the jobs and public transportation are, tighter credit requirements for all homebuyers, and a reluctance to buy a home in an uncertain and rapidly changing job market. The stock is on sale now thanks to their latest earnings release, which revealed apartment rent revenue in the D.C. area had declined, mostly thanks to government cuts.

However, as CEO Timothy Naughton noted on the third quarter earnings call, their prime demographic of ages 21-35 continues to provide a tailwind with ~5 million individuals turning 20 in 2013. He added that housing supply in job hubs has been constrained and that, "Witten [Advisors] is projecting that 7 of the 8 outperforming markets in the 2013, '16 timeframe will be in AVB's footprint."

CFO Sean Breslin pointed to its Pacific Northwest and Bay Area properties, all of which are doing well and are expected to continue to do so thanks to the growth of tech jobs in the area. Breslin also reported that rent revenue was rising in NYC and New Jersey as those areas continue to be job destinations for ambitious Millennials.

AvalonBay's forward earnings multiple is 17.58  and offers a yield of 3.60%. It also has the highest growth potential with a low PEG of 2.63 compared to 11.06 at Beazer Home and 7.13 at KB Home.

This trend is your friend
For the foreseeable future the trend is much better for rental apartment housing, especially in the job hubs where AvalonBay has rental communities. Student loan debt will continue to spiral higher and adversely affect the influx of new homebuyers for years to come, as will a tight job market. With AvalonBay's stock at lows due to only one flat market, now is a good time to check in.

Now that 2013 is almost behind us, it's time to look ahead to next year. Specifically, what the management team at Energy Transfer Partners has in store for its master limited partnership.

Big-time projects
We'll begin with the partnership's plan for 2014 capital expenditures. Energy Transfer will spend between $2.1 billion and $2.7 billion on growth projects, including a $1.0 billion investment in Sunoco Logistics Partners . Outside of that, the bulk of its cash will be directed toward its natural gas liquids transportation and services segment and its midstream segment.

Energy Transfer's NGL business has grown by leaps and bounds, and it now controls the second most processing capacity in the booming Eagle Ford shale play after Enterprise Products Partners . Energy Transfer has capacity of 1.34 billion cubic feet per day, while Enterprise is at 1.52 bcf per day.

Beyond that, the partnership has an impressive slate of projects scheduled to come online between now and the end of 2015, including the Trunkline crude oil conversion, its Mariner South NGL pipeline joint venture with Sunoco Logistics, several NGL fractionators, and, of course, its plan for an LNG export facility at Lake Charles, La.

The sheer variety of the growth projects is especially noteworthy, given that three years ago ETP was predominantly a natural gas transportation MLP.

Financial goals
After years of work straightening out its balance sheet, Energy Transfer Partners is committed to achieving two very important financial goals in terms of two key metrics: distribution coverage ratio and debt to adjusted EBITDA.

Anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to ETP over the past few years knows that it has had major issues in the distribution department. It held its quarterly payout straight for five years, and at times it couldn't even cover that.

All that changed this past quarter when the partnership increased its payout and produced out 1.14 times coverage on that distribution. Going forward, management would like to maintain an average coverage ratio of 1.05 times payouts or greater, while increasing its distribution in a sustainable manner.

Leadership is also targeting between 4.00 and 4.25 times debt to adjusted EBITDA. That is in line with what the ratings agencies require for an investment grade credit rating. Energy Transfer currently sports a BBB- rating from Standard & Poor's, which is investment grade, though it is the very last rung on the ladder before junk.

Bottom line
Energy Transfer Partners seems to have turned the corner, but 2014 will be a crucial year for investors to determine whether this is an MLP they want to be a part of for the long haul. If the partnership executes on its growth plan while meeting its financial goals, it could be a very compelling opportunity.

Just a few months ago, Ford's popular Fusion midsize car seemed to be gearing up for a monster 2014. The 2013 Ford Fusion had a great start this year, with deliveries up more than 20% year over year between January and May. However, inventory constraints held back sales over the summer.

Ford opened a second production line for the Fusion in preparation for the 2014 model year. This expanded production capacity by 30%, and was supposed to drive even stronger sales growth for the 2014 Ford Fusion.

Ford boosted Fusion production for the 2014 model year. Photo: Ford.

Instead, Ford has had to cut back Fusion production almost as soon as the new assembly line was up and running. Aggressive discounting by competitors, particularly Toyota Motor , and a shift in demand from cars to small SUVs now threaten to undermine the Fusion's momentum.

Sales keep growing, but not enough
Make no mistake: The 2014 Ford Fusion has generated big sales gains this fall. Last month, sales were up 51% year over year to 22,839. That comes on top of a 71% increase in October (to 21,740 units) and a 62% jump in September (to 19,972 units). These gains may seem impressive, but sales were unusually low last fall, when production of the new Fusion was just ramping up and supplies were very tight.

By contrast, Ford sold more than 30,000 Fusions in March, and nearly as many in May, which caused this summer's inventory shortages. (Ford's Hermosillo plant can produce roughly 25,000 Fusions per month.) The Flat Rock assembly line added 10,000 units of monthly production capacity, which hasn't been needed so far. Even with ample supply, Ford Fusion sales have not come close to the 30,000 per month pace seen earlier this year.

As a result, dealer inventories of the Fusion have skyrocketed this fall. In the middle of the year, dealers only had 39 days' supply of the Fusion, well below normal levels. By contrast, Fusion inventory had grown to 88 days of supply recently, which is uncomfortably high.

Ford will try to address the excess inventory by producing fewer Fusions for the time being. The company plans an extra week of downtime during the holiday season and as many as four weeks of downtime next quarter. This is part of a broader plan to decrease car production by 4% year over year in Q1 2014.

Toyota goes for market share
One of the main factors impacting Fusion sales has been a shift in customer demand toward small SUVs instead of sedans. However, aggressive discounting by Toyota may also be partly to blame.

The Toyota Camry has been the best selling midsize car in the U.S. for many years, but its lead has been shrinking. The devaluation of the yen this year has provided an opportunity for Toyota -- and other Japanese automakers -- to regain market share by lowering prices and boosting incentive spending.

Toyota has used aggressive discounts to keep the Camry on top. Photo: Toyota.

Ford officials claim that Toyota did just that in November, supporting the Camry with big incentives. (Not surprisingly, Toyota denies that it is doing anything out of the ordinary.) The 2014 Ford Fusion has the highest average transaction price in the midsize car segment, and Ford does not want to compromise margins by getting caught up in a price war. The only alternative is to scale back production.

Despite the heavy incentive spending, Toyota only posted a modest 5.6% increase in U.S. Camry deliveries last month. Still, now that the midsize car segment has essentially stopped growing, the only way for Ford to boost Fusion sales is for other automakers to see sales declines. If Toyota is willing to do whatever it takes to keep the Camry safely in its top market share spot, Ford could have trouble utilizing all of its Fusion production capacity.

Foolish bottom line
While the 2014 Ford Fusion is still driving year-over-year sales gains, dealers are not selling the car fast enough to justify the extra production capacity Ford recently brought online. Between the shift in demand from cars to SUVs and Toyota's renewed efforts to keep the Camry on top, the 2014 Ford Fusion may not hit the sales goals that recently seemed within reach.

Ford investors should keep a close eye on the Fusion's performance next month, as December tends to be a seasonally strong month for car sales. Ford representatives repeatedly stated on the company's recent conference call that Q1 production plans could be increased if the sales pace picks up this month. A strong December could quickly put the 2014 Ford Fusion back on track.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts has done it: 20 quarters in a row of positive same-store sales growth. If that's not a sign of a successful turnaround, I don't know what is. In an environment where competitors Dunkin' Brands Group and Starbucks are also displaying excellent strength in every metric, look for Krisoy Kreme to keep steamrolling ahead.

Results
Krispy Kreme reported third-quarter results on Dec. 3. Overall revenue leaped 6.7% to $114.2 million. Adjusted operating income popped 25.7% to $11.6 million. Adjusted net income rocketed 34.9% to $11.2 million or $0.16 per share. Company same-store sales ascended 3.7% to $74.9 million. It was the 20th quarter in a row with a positive same-store sales increase.

CEO James H. Morgan credited the success to Krispy Kreme's "long-term strategic plan" that is able to "unlock [the] brand's full potential." He referred to the 20th quarter in a row of same-store sales growth as "a remarkable distinction." He reminded shareholders that this was "despite the tepid consumer spending environment." Still, he insisted Krispy Kreme has "a uniquely bright long-term future."

Conference call
It doesn't sound like Krispy Kreme is slowing down any time soon. Early on in the call Morgan stated, "We are positioning ourselves for accelerated growth domestically with our new small factory store model and internationally by signing new franchisees, as well as follow-on development agreements with existing partners."

Morgan was quick to point out that the 3.7% increase in same-store sales was against a difficult quarter to beat last year that saw a 7% rise. Coffee and beverage sales did even better, coming in with a 4.2% gain. He stated that the next goals for Krispy Kreme are further increases in same-store sales and profitability.

CFO Douglas R. Muir offered a sneak peek into the fourth quarter. He stated, "As we have moved into the fourth quarter, we continue to see positive comparisons. Comps rose about 1.5% for the 3 weeks ended November 24. We expect to report our 21st consecutive quarter of positive same-store sales when we report our fourth quarter results in March."

For fiscal year 2015, Muir guided for adjusted EPS of between $0.71 and $0.76.  It wasn't high enough for investors, and the stock got hammered on Tuesday.  The problem with this negative reaction is that it's difficult for a place that sells doughnuts and coffee to give meaningful guidance this far in advance.  As such, Muir was being extremely cautious and conservative.  Few people seemed to pick up on the fact that Muir stated, "I'll emphasize that this is very preliminary."  Translation?  He's leaving himself room to potentially raise guidance as visibility improves.

While there is little question that Krispy Kreme is performing well, the environment for its pastries and coffee doesn't seem challenging judging by its competitors' results.

Dunkin' and Starbucks
Dunkin' Brands Group saw its own share of success. While CEO Nigel Travis has described this space as operating in "a fairly difficult environment," Dunkin' Brands has delivered results similar to those of Krispy Kreme. Last quarter, Dunkin' Brands saw overall revenue push 8.6% to $134.3 million. Its company-owned US Dunkin' Donuts same-store sales grew 4.2% as both guest traffic and average ticket sales climbed. Dunkin' Brands Group is working on reporting its 15th quarter in a row of positive same-store sales growth.

Starbucks was even better on same-store sales growth. It saw this metric rise by 8%. Considering how widespread and iconic the Starbucks brand already is, that's quite a jump especially if you really believe this space is having economic challenges. Starbucks' total revenue shot up 13% to $3.8 billion. CEO Howard Schultz called 2013 "a record year by far."

Foolish final thoughts
While it seems like Krispy Kreme, Dunkin' Brands Group, and Starbucks have been humble about industry conditions, the numbers tell a different story. With all three of these companies doing this well during "tepid" or "difficult" times, they may truly be off to the races when times improve. Foolish investors should take a closer look at Krispy Kreme for long term profitable growth.

Thanksgiving 2013 will likely be remembered as the year that Black Friday took over the holiday, with stores like Wal-Mart Stores  opening its doors at 6 p.m. instead of waiting for the clock to strike midnight. Most retailers did the same, afraid of losing potential sales by opening later.

But Costco Wholesale refused to open its doors on Thanksgiving, instead giving its employees the day off. While this move certainly generated some positive PR for the company, it actually makes business sense as well.

A different model
The traditional retail business model is simple. The store buys merchandise at one price, sells it at a higher price, and what's left over after operating costs is the store's profit. In other words, the more stuff you sell, the more profit you make.

Costco, however, is not a traditional retailer. Costco is a warehouse club, where shoppers must buy and maintain an annual membership in order to shop there. In return, members get extremely low prices on many goods, with Costco only marking up items by about 15%.

What this means is that most of Costco's profit comes from membership fees, not selling products. In the last fiscal year, membership fees made up about 75% of Costco's operating profit. So for Costco, it's not about selling more stuff, it's about getting more members. And opening on Thanksgiving doesn't accomplish that goal.

The people showing up to Costco on Black Friday are likely already members, as the membership fee would make most of the deals less attractive. It stands to reason, then, that opening on Thanksgiving wouldn't result in too many new memberships. This makes the choice for Costco simple.

On the one hand, the company could open on Thanksgiving, deprive its employees of the holiday, and do essentially nothing for its bottom line. On the other hand, the company could remain closed, give its employees Thanksgiving off, and enjoy the PR benefits of being one of the few retailers that didn't ruin Thanksgiving. It's a no brainer for the company.

No choice for Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart isn't so lucky. There is a relatively fixed amount of money that will be spent by consumers this holiday season, and every retailer is trying to get as big a piece as possible. If one big retailer opens its doors earlier than others, not following suit would mean some of that money will be gone by the time any customers get to competitors.

Wal-Mart really has no choice than to match what other retailers are doing, since it can't afford to lose any of those sales. This creates a PR problem, as people begin blaming the company for stealing away Thanksgiving from both consumers as well as employees. Couple that with the PR nightmare caused by Black Friday itself, with reports of customers fighting over towels, of all things, and other ridiculous behavior within its stores. Nothing deters me from shopping somewhere like the prospect of a fistfight over cheap towels.

Black Friday, and now "Brown Thursday," or whatever Thanksgiving ends up being called, represents a standoff for retailers. There's no turning back now, and I expect shopping on Thanksgiving to become the norm. If anything this hurts retailers, with two days of heavy discounting instead of just one. I doubt that this will spur more spending, as consumers are likely going to spend the same amount regardless of whether there are sales on Thanksgiving. In retail's quest for more revenue, profits are being sacrificed.

The bottom line
Retail is a tough industry to begin with, and the push into Thanksgiving isn't helping. Costco's unique business model allows it to eschew a Thanksgiving sale without hurting its bottom line, giving employees the day off and generating positive PR in the process. While many retailers will see lower margins than last year due to this increased discounting, Costco has made the right choice and stayed out of the fray.

Berkshire Hathaway has had a relatively eventful 2013, with a major acquisition, a few significant stock purchases, and one question that still lingers.

Warren Buffett announces his love for Heinz
On Valentine's day this year, Berkshire Hathaway announcedthat in partnership with 3G Capital, it would acquire beloved American condiments and food company Heinz for $28 billion. Buffett has often remarked about his elephant gun and his desire to acquire companies, and certainly the move to take over Heinz (while allowing Heinz to keep its own distinct identity) fit the bill.

Of the transaction, Buffett noted: "Heinz has strong, sustainable growth potential based on high quality standards, continuous innovation, and excellent management and great tasting products... we are very pleased to be a part of this partnership."

In total, the cost of the investment in Heinz to Berkshirewas $12.25 billion. And while Berkshire didn't disclose what the potential total impact to its bottom line and stock holders could be, Buffett noted when discussing the deal with CNBC in May:

Well, we always prefer to buy businesses, and that's what we consider Heinz to be. Well, we'll -- we'll be in Heinz forever and -- if a few of our partners decide to sell out at some point, I hope they sell to us.

When you consider that part of the investment included $8 billion in preferred shares that pay a 9% dividend, Buffett is likely pleased with the investment already, and when he said simply about the partnership with Jorge Paulo Lemann of 3G in his annual letter to shareholders, "we couldn't be in better company," it's easy to think this will be a deal that continues to pay off down the road.

Investment continues
Most recently, Berkshire Hathaway disclosed a nearly $3.5 billion position in ExxonMobil , which makes the energy giant now the 7th largest position in the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio:

Source: Company SEC Filings.

In addition to the purchase of Exxon, Berkshire Hathaway also unloaded a big chunk of its holdings in ConocoPhillips, which it originally purchased in 2008. But it wasn't just those two energy companies that piqued Buffett's interest, as there was also the more than $500 million position of Suncor Energy  added in the second quarter.

However, it isn't just the energy sector Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway have taken an interest in; there was also the $625 million addition of Liberty Media Corp and $400 million investment in Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, plus the nearly $700 million additional position taken in Wells Fargo  -- all in the first quarter.

The Berkshire Hathaway stock holdings had a market value of $75.3 billion at the end of 2012, but thanks to the additional purchases, plus the growth in the market itself, the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio is now worth an astounding $92 billion.

The successor question still lingers... but perhaps less so
Berkshire Hathaway has continued its astounding performance in 2013, as it has delivered roughly $14.5 billion to its shareholders through the first nine months of 2013, up more than 40% when compared to the same time last year. Yet while there is no doubt that Buffett and his company are again in the position of market leadership, there has been no further clarity as to who will succeed Buffett when his tenure at Berkshire comes to an end.

While a specific person has not been announced, at the annual shareholder meeting in May, Buffett noted, "[t]he key is preserving a culture and having a successor, a CEO that will have more brains, more energy, more passion for it than even I have," and that he and the Berkshire board of directors are "solidly in agreement as to who that individual should be."

So while the broader public may not have insight into who that person is, there should be a bit of relief knowing the individual has been named, and there is a consensus between Buffett and the Berkshire board about that person's ability to lead the company after Buffett's departure.

While we don't know what the future holds for Berkshire Hathaway, we do know that 2013 was another great year for Buffett, and all things point to that continuing in 2014.

The Dow Jones Industrials have posted extremely strong performance in 2013, surprising many investors who had expected the average to pull back after four years of gains following the financial crisis. But taken in a historical context, just how does the Dow in 2013 and its jump this year of more than 22% rank among the best years for the market? Let's take a look back to see where we stand.

Was the Dow in 2013 a bull market for the ages? Source: Wikimedia Commons.

More points than you can shake a stick at
If you judge the Dow in 2013 in terms of points, then this is shaping up to be the best year ever for the Dow Jones Industrials. Based on Friday's close, the Dow is up more than 2,900 points so far this year, giving it a wide margin over the next-best annual point gain of 2,315 points back in 1999. Like 2013, 1999's gains punctuated a long string of sizable jumps in previous years, with the Dow having risen by more than 1,000 points each year from 1995 to 1999. By contrast, the five-year period from 2009 to 2013 has involved more modest point gains, with the initial bounce from the 2009 lows slowing to a more measured pace in 2011 and 2012 before exploding higher again this year.

Yet to fairly represent past returns, looking at points isn't the best metric. With the Dow at 16,000, this year's 2,900-point gain produces a smaller percentage return than 1989's 27% jump -- even though the Dow rose by less than 600 points that year.

A solid gain in percentage terms
When you look at previous total returns for the Dow in percentage terms, the Dow in 2013 looks less exceptional. Over the past 100 years, the Dow has risen by 23% or more in 15 of them. The most recent came in 1997, when the Dow jumped almost 30% after successfully surviving the Asian financial crisis and a one-day, 554-point "mini-crash" that led many to conclude incorrectly that the bull run of the 1990s had ended.

In general, strings of solid performance have come in fairly close succession. Gains of 20%-plus came three times from 1983 to 1987, three times between 1954 and 1959, and three times each in the five years immediately before the Crash of 1929 and in the four years following the worst of the market's declines after the crash.

Maybe not the best year
In that light, even if the Dow's gains hold up throughout the rest of December, 2013 might not go down as the best year for the average ever. Nevertheless, investors should celebrate the strong returns while they last, because the returns of the size that we saw in the Dow in 2013 don't come along all that often.

Alpha Natural Resources is expecting over 200 coal plants to be shuttered because of increasingly stringent environmental regulations. However, the Illinois Pollution Control Board just gave Dynegy five more years to clean up plants it wants to buy so they wouldn't be shut down. That doesn't mark a trend reversal, but it shows that coal isn't dead yet.

More time
About a year ago, Ameren asked the Illinois Pollution Control Board to loosen environmental mandates at a handful of its coal plants. It warned that the cost of upgrades would lead it to shutter over 4,000 megawatts of power. That's a lot of power to replace, so the board agreed to delay the implementation of new rules by five years. Dynegy, which subsequently agreed to buy the power plants, won a similar hardship plea, threatening to call off its purchase if it didn't get the same deal.

That's good news for Ameren and Dynegy, which are swapping the assets. Ameren is looking to get out of the merchant power business so it can focus on its regulated assets. Although there's less upside on the regulated side of the utility business, it offers far more consistent returns. Moreover, the company will be able to refocus on regulatory relationships and improving its operations. In fact, the sale will make Ameren look a lot more like its regulated peers, which should please more conservative investors.

Dynegy, meanwhile, is increasing its already large position in coal. It will go from owning a little under 3,000 megawatts of coal power in the state to over 7,000. And the company, which only emerged from bankruptcy in late 2012, will continue to be a big customer for Powder River Basin (PRB) coal—which all of its units, current and those to be acquired, use.

The PRB players
That's great news for Cloud Peak Energy , which operates exclusively in the PRB region. It also helps explain why the company hasn't lost a dime despite the coal industry's difficulties. That's been helped along by its astute basin focus and its avoidance of metallurgical coal. That latter market has seen a severe price correction despite still solid demand because of oversupply.

That's been a thorn in the side of Arch Coal . Arch which is another of the big PRB players, paid $3.5 billion to acquire met coal assets at what, in hindsight, was the top of the market. So while weak thermal coal markets have been an issue, the company's notable position in the PRB has actually been an island of strength compared to its steel coal business. And the debt it took on for the deal remains another big overhang.

That said, Arch shares have been hard hit and should provide the most upside of the big PRB players for more aggressive investors. Indeed, while Cloud Peak is likely to get through the downturn without too much pain, you are essentially betting that Arch manages to muddle through when you buy its shares. Assuming it does, however, the shares should rebound nicely.

ACI data by YCharts

That said, if you want more diversification than Cloud Peak offers and less risk than Arch, Peabody Energy is a better option. The company is big in the PRB, but also has notable operations in the similarly cheap Illinois Basin and in Australia, which has easy access to still growing Asia. Besides being more diversified than Arch, Peabody is also less levered.

This is not the end of coal
The big takeaway from the concessions granted to Ameren and Dynegy is that coal is far from dead. And, looking at the coal industry, Cloud Peak, Peabody, and Arch will benefit from Illinois' decision because it means continued demand for their PRB coal. Of the trio, Cloud Peak, which is focused on the region, is the most direct beneficiary.

Massive power outage recently seen again in Caracas, Venezuela may cause Russia's second largest oil producer Lukoil to seek more stable growth. Considering the company's CEO said last month they wanted to expand Lukoil's presence in China with increased exporting of oil and gas, the recent power outage in Venezuela, which affected 70% of the country's population, may only intensify the allure of gaining Asia partners, especially since they already have relationships with PetroChina and Sinopec .

NRG Energy's Power2Serve, a 42-foot disaster relief vehicle and 26-foot-long trailer combination, is helping customers charge phones and laptops and access news to keep the community informed through a non-traditional mobile vehicle. While this move is not as disruptive as it could have been, it should be applauded because it shows utility providers are more willing to do whatever takes to help customers keep the lights on.

Resiliency is a buzzword heard countless times in 2013, but at the end of the day it comes down to 24/7 power generation. This has me enthusiastic for the future and new technologies such as Google's Project Loon, which is presently being tested in New Zealand. Stay tuned for upcoming podcasts as we explore new ways technology will help revolutionize disaster relief and the energy industry as a whole before, during, and after the next power outage or Frankenstorm.

Heroines are winning at the box office! The Hunger Games: Catching Fire entered the weekend having already earned an estimated $593.9 million for Lions Gate Entertainment as Frozen, Walt Disney's animated adventure starring two sisters, continues to impress at the box office.

Fool analysts Tim Beyers and Nathan Alderman look at the growing market for movies and TV shows featuring female leads in the latest episode of Geekstock, The Motley Fool's new Web show, in which we talk about the big-money names behind your favorite movies, toys, video games, comics, and more.

Nathan says that Disney's success with marketing to boys via its Marvel and Lucasfilm acquisitions has allowed executives to take chances in other areas. Frozen breaks tradition by removing the need for a prince to swoop in and save the day. Catching Fire abides by a similar archetype, and judging by the box office results, we'll see more such stories in the coming years.

Tim agrees that Disney is making strides but says Time Warner may be an even bigger benefactor of the rise of heroines in casting Gal Gadot as Diana Prince (a.k.a. Wonder Woman) for 2015's Batman vs. Superman.

Now it's your turn to weigh in. Have you seen Frozen and Catching Fire? What do you think of Warner's choice of Gadot for Wonder Woman? Please watch the video as host Ellen Bowman puts Tim and Nathan on the spot, and be sure to check back here often for more Geekstock segments.