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

What: Shares of Valeant Pharmaceuticals  shot higher by as much as 12% after the Canadian pharmaceutical and medical devices giant introduced its revenue and earnings-per-share forecast for fiscal 2014.

So what: According to a Reuters report today, Valeant projected revenue in the range of $8.2 billion-$8.6 billion -- an approximately 40% increase from the previous year -- with adjusted EPS of $8.25-$8.75. By comparison, Wall Street estimates are calling for $8.71 in EPS on just $8.28 billion in revenue. Keep in mind that much of this growth derives from its purchase of Bausch & Lomb last year, but it points to an ongoing trend from Valeant of growth through acquisitions. Just last month, Solta Medical also agreed to be acquired by Valeant.

Now what: There are two ways to grow in the pharmaceutical sector: through organic pipeline development or by acquiring successful companies. Both have their risks, but Valeant seems to have chosen the latter. The risk in this method is that proven companies can command hefty buyout premiums that could leave Valeant's profit reeling in comparison to its revenue growth over the next couple years. I do, however, agree with CEO Michael Pearson that Valeant has the potential to become a top-five pharmaceutical company by the end of 2016. As an investor I wouldn't recommend chasing shares higher today, as further acquisitions could pressure Valeant's bottom line, but I would certainly keep it on your watchlist and consider it a potentially attractive buy on any significant weakness.

Follow @TMFZahrim

Dividend-paying stocks tend to beat the market in the long run. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is packed with 30 dividend payers, hand-picked for their staying power. The cream of the dividend-paying crop among these 30 elite stocks should provide a fantastic income-generating foundation for any long-term investing portfolio, including yours. But how do you find the best of the best?

One way is to rank the Dow components by dividend growth. By that measure, here are the top three Dow stocks over the last five years:

Data from S&P CapitalIQ.

On average, UnitedHealth has more than doubled its dividend every year over the last half-decade. Visa's 46% annual growth rate and McDonald's' 22% CAGR look downright timid next to the health insurance giant's massive dividend strides.

But it ain't that simple, dear Fool. You see, Visa and McDonald's built their dividend growth one step at a time, raising their payouts like clockwork every year. UnitedHealth started its five-year payout growth story with a bang, raising its nominal $0.03 dividend per share in 2009 to $0.41 in 2010. When you start out with a more than tenfold increase, you're kind of skewing the whole five-year story.

This is what the top three payout growth stories look like in a five-year perspective:

UNH Dividend data by YCharts.

UnitedHealth has followed that initial surge with growth rates consistently north of 30%. Visa has delivered 40% annual dividend increases or better three times in the last five years, while McDonald's never crossed the 30% threshold.

So UnitedHealth is still one of the Dow's strongest dividend growers, with or without that 2010 leap. Just don't expect another sudden 1,250% surge like the one we saw that year, because that was a one-time event based on UnitedHealth finally taking dividend payouts seriously.

And while UnitedHealth stock may have shot past Visa's timid dividend yields, it still runs far behind McDonald's in the current income-generating perspective.

UNH Dividend Yield (TTM) data by YCharts.

One size most definitely doesn't fit all. If you're looking for big payouts now, McDonald's might fit your portfolio better than either of its high dividend-growth peers. For investors with a long-term view, McDonald's might actually be the worst of these three choices due to its slower payout growth.

Although it has yet to be announced, plenty of investors, analysts, and tech observers are expecting tech powerhouse Apple to unveil its much-discussed iWatch at some point in 2014.

Short of an actual announcement, there are still plenty of reasons to believe Apple has a smart watch waiting in the wings. But if one recent report holds even a glimmer of truth, the world's largest publicly traded company still has a very long way to go before its iWatch is ready to hit the shelves.

Source: Apple

Production problems persist
According to reports, it appears yields on a key component of Apple's iWatch have been absolutely abysmal.

Citing sources with detailed knowledge of Apple's upstream Asian supply chain, Taiwanese tech site Digitimes has claimed Apple is currently seeing yields of lower than 50% for some portion of its iWatch manufacturing process, specifically with the metal injection molded chassis production process, or MIM for short. This is a common manufacturing process that enables the mass fabrication of products with complex industrial designs.

And apparently it's giving Apple fits in the case of the iWatch.

Now before getting too carried away with the news, it's worth noting that Digitimes has a somewhat dubious history when it comes to these kinds of rumors, so take it with a grain of salt. But given Apple's penchant for complex and highly customized product designs, it's not too far fetched to think Apple could be encountering such issues. The news also seems plausible as Apple isn't the only tech name struggling with production yields with its smart watches. The rumor mill has also cited Qualcomm as encountering similar production-process issues with its Toq smart watch as well.

And if these rumors indeed prove correct, it could mean bad news for Apple and its investors as the smart watch market as a whole appears set to take off in 2014 with or without Apple.

Competition rising
This could be a defining year for the smart watch. Aside from tech companies like Qualcomm and Samsung that already have smart watches on the market, names including the likes of Google, Nokia, LG, Nike, Microsoft, and many more have also been referenced as either having smart watches currently in development or serious plans to do so under way.

But even with so many names possibly developing their own smart watches, sales are predicted to remain muted on an absolute basis for 2014. Recently, the chief economist of the Consumer Electronics Show, which began yesterday, predicted the smart watch market would only ship 1.5 million units in 2014.

Between the relatively limited options currently available and the reported manufacturing difficulties, it certainly seems plausible that this growth market could still be some time in the making. But with the global watch industry generating around $60 billion in annual sales, it seems there's ample economic opportunity in this space.

Apple could still change the game
Although there are only rumors to support the notion at the moment, it certainly seems Apple is once again perfectly positioned to add the watch industry to the long list of things it has helped revolutionize.

True, Steve Jobs is no longer calling the shots at Apple. And yes, current Apple CEO Tim Cook isn't known as a "product guy." But as a company, Apple's true expertise has always been in attractively integrating hardware and software into a powerful ecosystem that developers love to support.

But in order to revolutionize the global watch industry, it appears Apple could have to overcome its fair share of supply-chain issues in order for its next game-changer to hit the market in 2014.

Yesterday morning, iRobot Corporation piqued my interest with a teaser email promising a new robot announcement today. So naturally, I took a little time to speculate what it could be before finally landing on a likely refresh of its line of Scooba hard-floor-scrubbing bots.

And wouldn't you know it, shares of iRobot have jumped around 8% so far today following the company's reveal of the Scooba 450. At just over 14 inches wide, the Scooba 450 will "wash away up to 99.3% of bacteria," iRobot promises, "[getting] down and dirty so you don't have to."

Source: iRobot. iRobot's new Scooba 450 floor-washing robot.

But the Scooba 450 also comes with a steep $599 price tag, which means it could be tough to convince able-bodied consumers on the fence to ditch their existing manual methods. Still, it's worth noting that the adorable 3-year-old, 6.5-inch-wide, $279 Scooba 230 still remains an option for those who need a more compact bot.

With this in mind, iRobot also wasted no time completely removing the 450's comparably sized predecessor, the $499 Scooba 390, from its website. 

But can you blame them? Higher margins aside, iRobot says the 450 is up to three times more effective than previous Scooba models -- a feat achieved largely thanks to its new three-stage process, which involves first sweeping and pre-soaking floors, then scrubbing, and finishing with a final squeegee to pick up any remaining mess. In addition, it also has two available cleaning options, including a 40-minute cycle for up to 300 square feet and a 20-minute cycle for up to 150 square feet.

If you're having trouble visualizing the process, here's a nice little promo video from iRobot to help:

And for the millions of folks who already own and love a Roomba vacuum, iRobot made sure the Scooba 450 remains compatible with all previous Roomba Virtual Wall accessories to keep them each in their proper place.

Finally, unlike the recently launched Roomba 880, the new Scooba is sticking to using brushes. Why? According to iRobot, the brushes simply proved more effective at scrubbing tough grime from hard surfaces.

In the end, while it may not represent a stunning new robot category some were hoping for, the Scooba 450 is a solid incremental offering that should help bolster iRobot's fast-growing Home Robot segment.

Remember, while iRobot's overall revenue fell by around 1.5% year over year in the most recent quarter -- primarily thanks to the impact of a $7.7 million return accrual rate adjustment in Q3 last year -- floor-care robot shipments actually grew 27% over the same period. If the new Scooba can do anything to help maintain that momentum, I think patient iRobot shareholders will be happy they held on.

Alcoa will release its quarterly report on Thursday, and even though the company is no longer a member of the Dow Jones Industrials, it still has the reputation for starting off earnings season. For the first time in a long time, Alcoa has investors excited about its future prospects, even as it and fellow industry peers Aluminum Co. of China and Rio Tinto's Alcan subsidiary have continued to deal with challenges from a glut of supply and resulting low prices for the lightweight metal.

One peculiarity about the aluminum industry is that unlike almost every other sector of the economy, aluminum has never really recovered from the recession and market meltdown in 2008. Despite strong demand from certain corners, especially the aluminum-hungry aerospace industry, metal prices have languished, and that has held back Alcoa from gaining back anything more than a tiny fraction of its roughly 85% decline in share price during the financial crisis. Finally, though, the stock has started to press higher recently. Could that signal an end to the downturn in aluminum? Let's take an early look at what's been happening with Alcoa over the past quarter and what we're likely to see in its report.

Stats on Alcoa

Source: Yahoo! Finance.

Will Alcoa earnings stay the course this quarter?
In recent months, analysts have been a bit more pessimistic about Alcoa's earnings prospects, cutting $0.02 per share from their earnings estimates for the full 2014 year. The stock has defied that pessimism, though, jumping 32% since early October.

Alcoa's third-quarter earnings report got the company off on the right foot, with the company reversing a year-earlier loss with a modest profit of $24 million for the quarter. In particular, investors were pleased with certain aspects of the company's guidance for 2014, with strong gains in China expected from the automotive and heavy truck and trailer segments. Anticipated gains in global aerospace demand of 9% to 10% should also help Alcoa and peers Chinalco and Rio Tinto Alcan in their efforts to keep prices up.

But the big news of the quarter came later in October, when Alcoa announced a joint venture with Russia's VSMPO-AVISMA, a producer of aircraft-grade titanium. The goal of the consortium will be to provide a one-stop shop for the titanium and aluminum demands of the aerospace industry, which expects trillions of dollars of new orders in the next 20 years. Given the reputation of both aluminum and titanium as being lightweight and durable, combining forces makes sense for both companies and should give Alcoa a competitive advantage over Rio Tinto Alcan and Chinalco in working with aerospace customers.

Moreover, Alcoa has plenty of opportunities to further its growth in the coming years. Big gains in car and truck sales in the U.S. have reinvigorated the auto industry, giving manufacturers more latitude to consider energy-saving engineering efforts that could boost the amount of aluminum used in new vehicle designs. Similarly, supply deals with Airbus and Boeing point to the need for high-quality aluminum production for mission-critical applications in aerospace and defense, while other uses in energy and electronics will also be critical to Alcoa's long-term success.

In the Alcoa earnings report, watch closely for further signs of overall economic recovery not just in the key China region but also in hard-hit areas like Europe, which has been taking steps toward coming out of recession recently. Shareholders are already anticipating better results for Alcoa, so the company will need to show signs of progress in order to avoid disappointing investors on Thursday.

Click here to add Alcoa to My Watchlist, which can find all of our Foolish analysis on it and all your other stocks.

Follow @leokornsun

Prepare to be enraged, sci-fi fans of the 1980s -- the dreaded RoboCop reboot is headed to theaters on Feb. 12.

Although I am a huge fan of Paul Verhoeven's original 1987 film, this shiny new remake from MGM and Sony's Columbia Pictures deserves to fail for three big reasons.

1. It's a PG-13 take on an R-rated story

The biggest problem with the new RoboCop is that it is a PG-13 rated affair. The original Verhoeven film was a stunning tour de force due to its graphic violence and dark dystopian humor.

In the original film, Alex Murphy's death was a sadistic and gruesome one, with his arm being shot off before being murdered in cold blood. In the new film, as revealed in the trailer, he is merely "critically injured" when his car explodes. In Verhoeven's version (not the subsequent sequels), Murphy is never reunited with his wife and son -- in the new film, his wife and son apparently know exactly who he is.

The old Robocop vs. the new Robocop. (Source: Thecynicalowl.com)

Screenwriter Ed Neumeier, who wrote the original RoboCop and Starship Troopers, was also a master of satire, as he eerily predicted a bankrupt Detroit selling its police force to the highest bidder. That level of satire will be a tough act to follow for a first-time screenwriter like Joshua Zetumer, who was inexplicably handed the reins of the beloved franchise.

That's not to say that films can't be dark without being bloody -- Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy pulled that off perfectly. However, RoboCop is a film of hot blood and cold metal -- something that can't be easily replicated.

When Verhoeven and Neumeier left the franchise after the first film, the franchise fell apart, both commercially and critically.

Source: Boxofficemojo, Rotten Tomatoes. (numbers not inflation-adjusted)

Those numbers show that the successful R-rated balance that Verhoeven and Neumeier achieved so perfectly was tough to replicate -- no subsequent film could match the original RoboCop's commercial and critical success.

2. It tries to rewrite the established universe rather than expand upon it

With the RoboCop reboot, the Spider-Man reboot, and upcoming Terminator reboot, Hollywood is making a strange assumption -- that audiences lack the intelligence or the means to simply go back and watch any films more than 10 years old.

Rebooting a film franchise is lazy and disrespectful to the audiences and the original creators of the film. A better way to build upon a film franchise is to expand its world via sequels, rather than repeatedly overwrite the established canon. While that establishes a sense of familiarity, it is also tedious and the new film can suffer by comparison.

In the Spider-Man reboot, we are constantly reminded how much better Sam Raimi is than Marc Webb at capturing the balance between the light and darkness of Peter Parker's life. In Total Recall, we are constantly reminded how much funnier Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sharon Stone were than Colin Farrell and Kate Beckinsale.

For many people who grew up watching the original RoboCop, Peter Weller remains the definitive Alex Murphy. Granted, Joel Kinnaman (Detective Holder from AMC's The Killing) has the acting chops to pull it off, but why not cast him as a new RoboCop instead and connect it back to the events of the original film?

Another highly questionable decision was to remove Anne Lewis, Murphy's loyal partner and foil in the original films, altogether. Instead, the new film inexplicably reimagines her as a man named Jack Lewis and possibly kills him off as an early plot point. That rewrite not only removes the strong female character of the series but also eliminates Murphy's only real connection to his human side.

3. It looks like a video game

The original RoboCop was a hit for the same reasons that Terminator 2 was a success -- the action sequences felt visceral, real, and intelligently paced.

After the original RoboCop, Verhoeven and Neumeier didn't work together again until Starship Troopers (1997), a polarizing film that nonetheless delivered the themes of political satire, dark humor, and graphic violence that made Robocop a critical hit.

The new Robocop, on the other hand, features a radically redesigned Robocop in a black suit seemingly lifted straight from Electronic Arts' Crysis series. In fact, it's impossible for gamers to watch the trailer without thinking of that game.

The new Robocop suit vs. Prophet's suit in Crysis 2. (Source: Totallylookslike.com)

Therein lies the problem -- Hollywood wants to reboot classic action films as unplayable video game sequences.

With Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, General Zod pilots a ship that strongly resembles the Reapers from EA's Mass Effect; in Marc Webb's Spider-Man, we get a first-person-perspective, free-running sequence that looks exactly like the introduction of EA's Mirror's Edge; and now in RoboCop, we get a rebooted version of Alex Murphy who looks more like Crysis' Prophet.

Films such as the original RoboCop and Terminator 2 never felt like video games. They had bombastic shoot 'em up sequences and chase scenes, but they never felt fake or lazy. Nowadays, most action films filled with CGI feel like the scenes are built around the character on a green screen, completely removing any sense of urgency or realism.

The bottom line

Don't get me wrong -- I don't think RoboCop will bomb at the box office.

However, I think it deserves to fail for those three aforementioned reasons. If it does, Hollywood might finally understand that it needs to stop messing with classic films and start moving forward, take some bigger risks, and launch original franchises that can forge some new memories for movie audiences.

Want to learn more about the movie business?

Investors betting Chelsea would win FDA approval for its drug Northera for neurogenic orthostatic hypotension, or NOH, in multiple systems atrophy and Parkinson's patients, were dealt a disappointing blow when the FDA opted against approving the drug in 2012.

However, the FDA's willingness to consider data from another Northera phase 3 study breathed new life into Chelsea, lifting shares more than 350% in 2013.

CHTP Total Return Price data by YCharts.

Stumbling along the path
Chelsea acquired Northera from Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd in 2006. The oral drug helps to relieve symptoms of dizziness and prevent falls tied to low blood pressure in patients with diseases associated with a malfunctioning of the autonomic nervous system -- the system that automatically controls functions in the body such as heart rate.

After ushering Northera through trials, Chelsea edged out narrow support from an FDA review panel in early 2012. That panel voted seven to four in favor of Northera in recognition of a lack of other NOH treatment options.

However, in an uncommon move a month later, the FDA cited a lack of insight into the durability of Northera's effect on patients and concerns over data collected at the study's highest enrolling site as the reasons behind rebuffing the panel's recommendation.

That decision forced Chelsea to rejigger another ongoing Northera study, known as 306B, to address the FDA's worries.

But those changes didn't put an end to Northera's troubles. After explaining the proposed changes to its 306B study, the FDA concluded a potential un-blinding of patient data presented too large a risk to the study's objectivity. As a result, the FDA determined results from 306B wouldn't be likely to provide enough evidence to support Northera's approval.

In order to preserve cash as it considered options, Chelsea began an aggressive cost-cutting program following that decision, including significant lay-offs and the removal of its founder as CEO.

Those tough decisions and the resulting lower expenses may end up positioning Chelsea for bigger profits as hopes renew for Northera's commercialization.

In February, the FDA changed its position, agreeing to use the 306B study as part of a new submission for approval. Specifically, the FDA suggested short term benefits from 306B could serve as a basis of approval if durability questions could be answered in a post-approval follow up study. That news prompted Chelsea to refile for Northera's approval this summer, resulting in an expected February 14, 2014 FDA decision date. It also prompted Chelsea to address the durability issue with the launch of a new study that enrolled its first patient in early December.

Exiting stage left
The need for new NOH therapies for MSA and Parkinson's patients remains high. As a result, the FDA has awarded Chelsea a potentially lucrative orphan designation for Northera.

That designation has been a windfall for a number of emerging biotechnology companies, including BioMarin , whose $365,000 a year Naglazyme for Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome has provided the company with the firepower to roll out additional treatments including Kuvan and Aldurazyme. It also helped United Therapeutics build a billion dollar a year franchise selling Remodulin, Tyvaso, and Adcirca as treatment for the rare pulmonary arterial hypertension indication.

Chelsea will get additional insight into when it may be able to profit from that designation when an FDA advisory panel evaluates Northera on January 14th, 2014. If that advisory panel supports Northera's approval again, it would be surprising if the FDA balks when it decides Northera's fate in mid February.

If Northera does win approval, it could clear the way for Chelsea broaden its addressable market by studying the drug as a treatment in other norepinephrine-related conditions and diseases, such as intradialytic hypotension, fibromyalgia and adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Regardless, a positive decision would provide much needed clarity -- something that's been lacking for over a year.

While Fools should generally take the opinion of Wall Street with a grain of salt, it's not a bad idea to take a closer look at particularly stock-shaking upgrades and downgrades -- just in case their reasoning behind the call makes sense.

What: Shares of Chesapeake Energy Corporation traded sluggishly on Tuesday after Bank of America downgraded the natural gas and oil company from buy to neutral.

So what: Along with the downgrade, analyst Doug Leggate lowered his price target to $31 (from $36), representing about 18% worth of upside to yesterday's close. While momentum traders might be attracted to the stock's strong return in 2013, Leggate believes that much of Chesapeake's improvement potential is already being discounted by Mr. Market.

Now what: According to B of A, Chesapeake's risk/reward trade-off isn't as attractive as it was last year. "At the root of this change is that the recovery thesis which initially attracted us to CHK's distressed valuation has largely played out," noted B of A. "While we expect CHK to accelerate efforts to improve efficiency across the board, including steps to increase free cash flow, much of this has arguably been recognized in a share price that appreciated 63% in the past year." With Chesapeake shares still trading at a forward P/E of only 11, however, Fools shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the upside potential.  

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

What: Shares of genetic testing instrument maker Affymetrix  climbed 11% today after its fourth-quarter sales outlook impressed Wall Street.

So what: The stock has rocketed over the past six month on optimism over stabilizing demand, and today's preliminary fourth-quarter report only reinforces those good vibes. In fact, Affymetrix's projected revenue represents about 8% growth over the year-ago period, suggesting that its competitive position is strengthening as well.  

Now what: Management now expects fourth-quarter revenue of roughly $91 million, which includes a one-time $5.3 million licensing payment from a diagnostic partner.

"In 2013 we executed effectively against our three phase strategic plan and we exited the year as a much stronger Company," said President and CEO Dr. Frank Witney. "Over the last 12 months we improved our business's performance, significantly reduced our senior debt and increased our overall cash balance."

Of course, with Affymetrix shares now up a whopping 130% since August and trading at a forward P/E of 60, much of that improvement might already be baked well into the valuation. 

Yesterday saw a fair amount of volatility in the health-care sector after Goldman Sachs' literally downgraded  the entire sector, calling valuations for the majority of companies "fair." Being the first Monday of 2014, however, there were numerous analyst prognostications hitting the Street. Some of the particularly harsh ones sent their targets into a tailspin. Yet, I think it's important to remind investors that analysts' projections can be, and are, often wrong.

So here is my take on the notes by Citigroup analysts Yaron Werber and Jonathan Eckard that sent Sarepta Therapeutics and Ariad Pharmaceuticals spiraling downward yesterday.

Questions hang over Sarepta's Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug
In its note about Sarepta, Citigroup stated that they do not believe the mid-stage trial data for the company's flagship drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, called eteplirsen will be accepted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for accelerated approval. Citigroup thus placed an eye-popping price target of $13 on the stock, more than 30% below where the stock started the day. Sarepta finished the day down over 8% on unusually heavy volume, and shares are down another 4% today as of the writing of this article.

Of particular interest, Citigroup suggested that the drug's approval will be delayed at least until 2017, if not longer. And that's what I think caused the panic. Because Sarepta doesn't have a commercially available drug and relies primarily on dilution to fund its operations, the thought of waiting multiple years for revenues sent investors packing.

It's also important to understand that eteplirsen is only the first in a series of exon-skipping drugs that dominate Sarepta's clinical pipeline. So the company needs to get eteplirsen approved before it can unlock the value in its early stage candidates.

So, what's my take? As I look at Sarepta's stately market cap of $705 million, I have to wonder how much of that is based on expectations that eteplirsen was close to an approval. Citigroup is essentially suggesting that Sarepta's market cap should be more in line with other developmental stage biopharmas that are years away from an approval. At the end of the day, I have to agree with this assessment. There are still major regulatory and clinical trial risks ahead for eteplirsen, and these do not appear to be factored into the current share price. So you might want to take a pass on Sarepta until the road ahead is clearer.

Ariad gets hammered
Ariad was also the subject of Citigroup's wrath yesterday. Bringing out the hammer, Citigroup's analyst Yaron Werber said there were "potential negative surprises" for the company's lead cancer drug Iclusig in the next 12 months, including lower than expected sales due to safety concerns. As a result, they called Ariad Shares "high risk." Even so, they did actually raise their former price target by 65%, although this was still close to 20% below where shares were trading at the start of the day. Considering the magnitude of the downgrade, Ariad shares performed reasonably well, only falling 4.62% in the session.

In case you haven't been following this story, Iclusig was placed on a partial clinical hold by the FDA last October due to excessive risk of blood clotting. However, the hold has now been lifted and the drug will be relaunched with a revised label.

How do I view Ariad going forward? I personally think the shares are fairly valued when viewed in light of the sky-high valuations pervasive throughout the sector. That said, Ariad is still far away from becoming cash flow positive due to rising clinical costs, so it needs Iclusig to take some of the pressure off the bottom line. The problem is that Iclusig was never meant to be a front-line treatment, and now it's revised label puts it squarely behind Novartis' two leukemia drugs imatinib and nilotinib. So you may want to wait on the sidelines with this one.

Foolish final thoughts
I personally take most analysts' projections with a grain of salt. After watching the biopharma sector for as long as I have, you get the feeling that the sector is simply too unpredictable to put much stock into yearly outlooks. Even so, Ariad and Sarepta appear to be particularly risky stocks this year because of the regulatory issues handing over their primary value drivers. So Citigroup does have a point in these particular cases. Consequently, you might want to look into the plethora of biotechs with better outlooks this year.

The new year is off to a rocky start in the health care sector, with some stocks blasting off into orbit and others sinking like a stone. With that in mind, here is my take on why Epizyme , Neurocrine Biosciences , and Peregrine Pharmaceuticals  soared.

Royalty payments launch Epizyme into orbit
Shares of the developmental stage cancer company Epizyme went ballistic in afterhours trading yesterday, rising over 34% on heavy volume, and shares are up almost 80% today. Epizyme's lift off is due to the company earning $29 million from two different milestone payments, thus increasing year-end guidance to $145 million from $115 million.

Specifically, Epizyme earned a $25 million payday from Celgene after its experimental acute leukemia drug EPZ-5676 achieved a proof of concept milestone in an early stage study. The company also announced that it earned a $4 million payment from GlaxoSmithKline after one of its novel small molecule histone methyltransferase, or HMT, inhibitors met a key development milestone.

So, what now? Epizyme is partnered with an impressive list of major pharmas to develop their HMT inhibitor platform, and this has helped them to build a nice cushion of cash, despite being a very early stage company. With $145 million in cash, shares are only trading at roughly five times cash on hand. So while I personally am not an advocate of investing in companies at this stage in their evolution, Epizyme might be an exception to the rule. As such, you should keep this specialist Oncology company on your radar.

Neurocrine soars on mid-stage results
Neurocrine Biosciences soared in afterhours trading yesterday after announcing that one of its experimental drugs for tardive dyskinesia, an often incurable illness that causes involuntary movements and spasms, showed promising results in a mid-stage trial. Shares are up almost 80% today, and Neurocine's management said they plan on discussing a late-stage trial design with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, which could lead to the drug's eventual approval.

So, is Neurocrine worth checking out? The short answer is that this appears to be an overreaction to mid-stage results. This jump brings Neurocrine's market cap close to $1 billion, yet the company doesn't have an approved product. Moreover, they have had to rely heavily upon dilutive measures to fund their clinical activities. So with less than $30 million  in cash and an expensive late-stage trial to fund, I think the writing is on the wall for more dilution. In short, my take is that chasing Neurocrine after such a big jump is not a good idea because a secondary offering appears imminent.

Fast-track designation causes Peregrine to take flight
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals jumped more than 30% at one point yesterday after announcing that the company's non-small cell lung cancer drug, bavituximab, received fast track status from the FDA, and that a late-stage trial was under way. Shares finished the day up 14% and have pulled back slightly today. 

Because bavituximab is a second-line treatment, I am somewhat surprised that the FDA granted fast track status, which could lead to a priority review of the drug, if the late-stage results are positive. And this is probably why shares surged so much, given that the market was already aware that the late-stage trial had begun.

That said, you should understand that Peregrine is going to have to raise funds via dilution to pay for this trial. With about $40 million in the bank and the company undertaking numerous clinical trials, I would expect management to take advantage of this rise in share price to raise funds. Even so, Peregrine's bavituximab appears to have a good chance of success based on its mid-stage results, offering investors an intriguing risk to reward ratio. Overall, my take is that Peregrine definitely warrants a closer look, especially after raising the funds necessary to carry out its clinical activities.

Apple just announced today that sales from its App Store hit $10 billion in 2013, with $1 billion of that coming in December alone. That's a massive amount of sales for the company's vast ecosystem -- and the company's advantage over Google's app store is about to get even bigger.

Outpacing the competition
While Apple and Google are neck and neck when it comes to the amount of apps in their mobile stores, a report by Distimo last month showed that Apple users make up 63% of all app buying compared to 37% for Google Play users.

 
Source: Distimo

Apple clearly has a large lead over the Android maker, despite Google making some gains in the share of app purchases since June of last year, rising 7% in just five months.

Another interesting aspect of Apple's App Store announcement was that it has now paid out $15 billion to app developers. That's up from $7 billion from the same time a year ago. That's a strong lure for major app developers.

With its share of app purchases, $10 billion sales and a massive $15 billion paid out to app developers it's obvious that Apple's ecosystem is in great shape. But there's one opportunity in 2014 that could push Apple even further ahead of Google: China. 

Apple's new app advantage
Apple and China Mobile recently announced a partnership to release the iPhone on the world's largest carrier in just a few weeks. Analyst projections for how many iPhones sales this could add for Apple vary, but an oft-quoted estimate of 17 million units in 2014 is within reason. Apple's advantage isn't just that it's about to add potentially millions more iPhone users, but that Android users in the region are typically accessing apps from third-party app stores that don't count toward Google Play sales.

Over the past few months Apple has pulled apps from its app store in China because they violated the country's censorship laws, but focusing too much on censorship issues is a bit misguided. The top 10 best-selling apps this year in the App Store were games and in Apple's China App Store 90 % of sales come from games.

In its 2013 year-end report Distimo pointed out that Asian markets are showing the largest growth for apps and that China is one of the top three highest growth markets this past year, spiking by 280% in 2013. China is also the fifth-largest app revenue market in 2013. With Apple about to officially launch on China Mobile, the iPhone maker is poised to see even more success for its App Store in 2014.

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

Strong economic data and a few timely market moves have helped the Dow Jones Industrial Average  jump toward another record, up more than 110 points as of 2:30 p.m. EST, with most of the index's blue-chip member stocks in the green. Health care's had the biggest reason to celebrate today, with both UnitedHealth Group and Johnson & Johnson receiving timely upgrades that have propelled the two stocks to the top of the Dow leaderboard. Let's catch up on what you need to know.

The economy picks up steam
The broader economy kicked things off for the Dow earlier today, as new figures show the U.S. trade deficit fell by 13% in November from October, plunging below economist expectations in the process. That's good news for the overall U.S. economy, indicating more activity for American companies -- either through less business from overseas competitors in the U.S. or via more sales by domestic companies abroad. Either way, it's a step in the right direction for the economy's continued resurgence.

Health insurance stocks have had a big day across the market as Obamacare continues to pick up speed. So far, more than 2.1 million Americans have signed up for insurance through the new Affordable Care Act exchanges. That is still below administration estimates, but a far cry from the dismal numbers seen in the first month or two after the law's rollout.

UnitedHealth's making the most of insurance's surge today, as the stock has jumped more than 3.7% to lead the Dow by a huge margin. UnitedHealth picked up an upgrade from Deutsche Bank today, which raised its opinion on the stock to buy from hold. Deutsche cited UnitedHealth's more cautious embracing of Obamacare, especially in comparison to rivals that have approached the law in a more open fashion.

UnitedHealth hasn't been shy about its wariness of the new law: The company only elected to participate in a handful of state individual insurance exchanges, fearing that spiking costs could outweigh any revenue gains. That's a well-founded fear considering how UnitedHealth's own medical costs have outpaced premium revenue in terms of growth over the last reported nine months on a year-over-year basis. With more Americans now having insurance in the new year, insurance investors should keep a close eye on how costs start to mount at their favorite companies.

Johnson & Johnson's also riding the upgrade train today, as RBC Capital Markets moved the diversified health care stock from sector perform to outperform. J&J's been a good pick for investors over the years and didn't disappoint in 2013's rally, and RBC noted that the company's increasingly strong pharmaceutical division could help grow operating margins at the firm.

Indeed, drugs have become the staple of J&J as the company's medical device and consumer health divisions have seen growth slow. Meanwhile, tried-and-true drugs like immunology standout Remicade continue to serve as cash cows for this blue-chip health care king, while up-and-coming drugs like type 2 diabetes medication Invokana have Johnson & Johnson investors excited about a bright future. Johnson & Johnson's a company that reaches over many niches in the health care sector, but despite its breadth, this is one stock that has plenty of potential to run higher in 2014.

Like many industries, the tobacco industry is changing as consumers shift their buying habits to cheaper products in times of economic uncertainty and hardship. Unfortunately, this trading down has been compounded by the rising excise taxes on tobacco products around the world. As a result, consumers are shifting toward value brands, shunning traditionally expensive brands such as Philip Morris International's Marlboro, sold within the United States by Philip Morris USA, a subsidiary of Altria Group .

Numbers reveal trends
While these trends are obvious, data supplied by Reynolds American shows the scale of this 'down-trading.' Within a recent shareholder presentation by Reynolds, the company notes that since 2006, the number of premium cigarettes sold as a percentage of the overall volume of cigarettes sold within the United States has declined from slightly more than 70% to 58.6%. Meanwhile, the value segment of the market has expanded to 41.4% of the total market, up from slightly less than 30%.

What's more, Reynolds reports that the market for pipe and roll-your-own tobacco, which is generally cheaper per equivalent cigarette, has exploded over the same period. For example, during 2006 the annual sales of pipe and roll-your-own tobacco rose from 20 million pounds to an estimated 41 million pounds for full-year 2013.

Reflected in results
This trend is actually reflected within the results of both Philip Morris and Altria. Specifically, Altria reported that in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2013, the volume of Marlboro cigarettes shipped by the company declined 3.8%. Meanwhile, the volume of 'value' brands shipped by Altria in the nine months to Sept. 30, 2013 rose by 5%.

However, this trend is much more pronounced within the global tobacco market, where Philip Morris International carries the Marlboro flag.

Global trends
To understand why this is happening, we need to do some investigating. In particular, we need to look at cigarette pricing.

Thanks to this data supplied by the Tobacco Atlas, we can see the price of the Marlboro brand in comparison to those of its local peers:

As the table shows, cheaper alternatives to Marlboro can easily be found in many markets around the world.

This is where Philip Morris is already feeling the pain. You see, peers like British American Tobacco  have sensed an opportunity here and have driven forward with their own 'global-drive brands' priced lower than the Marlboro brand.

Philip Morris' volume of cigarettes shipped during the third quarter declined by 5.7%, led by a 2.5% decline in the total volume of Marlboro cigarettes. In comparison, international peer British American Tobacco's global-drive brands' sales grew 2.3% during the first half of this year.

For the nine months ending Sept. 30, 2013, British American reported that the volume shipped of its 'global drive' cigarette brands increased by 1.9%. The company's Dunhill brand led the increase, with volume rising 9.6%, and Pall Mall volume also rose 5.2%.

British American's four global-drive brands are Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike, and Pall Mall, and together their sales have expanded 62% since 2002. These four brands represent 24% of the company's total volume. Unlike Philip Morris, which is highly dependent on Marlboro, British American is nicely diversified.

Foolish summary
Economic hardship and rising excise taxes on cigarettes are two factors driving smokers toward cheaper, 'value' branded cigarettes. This is bad news for both Altria and Philip Morris, which rely on the premium-priced Marlboro for the majority of their income. On the other hand, British American Tobacco's value brands continue to take market share, and this is where the future of tobacco investing could be.

Monday night, Florida State hoisted the crystal football in the middle of the Rose Bowl, and it was just the beginning of the good times for the new national champions. There is no direct financial gain from winning a national title in college football - the winner makes no more than the loser since BCS money is largely based on conference affiliation - but studies and experience tell us there will be much indirect gain for Florida State in the coming months and years.

The 'advertising effect'

First, there's the "advertising effect." Take the 2012 BCS National Championship Game, for example. There were 36 hours of programming logged by ESPN alone on sets around New Orleans, and that's not counting the pre-game show, post-game show, and the game itself. Combine that with coverage from other networks and it's a huge national advertising campaign no school could afford to mount on its own. Malcolm Turner of Wasserman Media Group estimated it to be in the "tens of millions of dollars" in my book, Saturday Millionaires: How Winning Football Builds Winning Colleges.

Why is that advertising so important to a school? A recent study by economists (and brothers) Jaren and Devin Pope concluded in part, "...the results we present suggest that students can be affected by events that do not change the quality or cost of a school but that capture a student's attention."

An older study by the Carnegie Foundation also found this to be true. Students enrolling in Division I schools were asked: "When applying to colleges for admissions, how well informed were you about the intercollegiate football and/or men's basketball teams of the schools to which you applied?" Eighty-eight percent of males and 51% of females answered either "very well informed" or "moderately well informed."

In contrast, when asked, "When applying to colleges for admission, how well informed were you about the undergraduate education programs of the school to which you applied?" Only 39% of males and 42% of females chose either of the affirmative answers.

And that was in the late 1980s! Imagine what the results would be now with college football taking over our televisions all fall. I've asked the Carnegie Foundation if they've updated the study, and they indicated they had no plans to do so. It's not hard to imagine why.

Increased applications

You've probably heard of the "Flutie Effect," whereby universities receive an increase in applications following a major sports victory. A recent study by the Pope brothers found that winning the national championship results in an average 7%-8% increase in applications. In order to achieve the same results by decreasing tuition or increasing financial aid, the Popes found you'd need anywhere from a 2%-24% adjustment.

Quite often those additional applications are from out-of-state students who've learned more about the school through the football program's exposure. Boise State, a program that rarely saw national television time, experienced this firsthand following appearances in the Fiesta Bowl in 2007 and 2010. Out-of-state enrollment increased from just 13.5% in 2006 to 34% in 2011 for freshman. By the fall of 2013, over 57% of applications to Boise State came from out of state. Why is this important? An out-of-state student at Boise State pays over three times as much in tuition ($18,892) as in-state student ($6,292).

Improved academic profile

Increased applications give universities the opportunity to either grow enrollment, by accepting more of the applications, or improve their academic profile by becoming more selective. The University of Florida was able to do the latter following its run of national championships in both football and basketball from 2006-2008, which saw two titles for each sport.

In the fall of 2006, before any of the national titles, there were 1,603 entering fresh­man whose high school GPA was below a 3.69, which amounted to 15.3% of the class. By 2011 there were only 396 freshman with high school GPAs below 3.69, accounting for just 3.4% of the class. From 2006 to 2010, Florida's acceptance rate decreased from 53% to 39%.

A university with a national title in football might also see its academic profile rise in the form of an increased US News and World Report ranking. A study in the Research in Higher Education Journal in 2010 examined the impact of a national championship in football on a school's US News and World Report ranking from 1992-2006. It found that on average a school's ranking increased by 6.87 from two years before the championship to two years after.

It seems the advertising effect might have an impact on the subjective peer assessment portion of a school's ranking, making a peer assessor think more fondly of a school because he's been inundated with news about the school, even if that news is in the sports world. In addition, the increased applications play a role. A championship was found to decrease acceptance rates by an average of 3.6% as schools received more applications and became more selective. Average SAT scores for the incoming class rose 26.5 points, retention rates improved by nearly 1%, and graduation rates improved by 3.42%.

Licensing

FSU might also experience a windfall from licensing revenue. Prior to winning a national championship in 2003, LSU had never generated licensing revenue in excess of $1 million. However, just one year after winning the title, the Tigers experienced an increase of over 200% to nearly $3 million. When LSU brought home another title in 2007, the school was bringing in more than $5 million.

Donations and tickets

The big win might also allow Florida State to raise contribution levels for tickets and ticket prices in the coming years. In the early 2000s, Florida's ticket revenue was fairly stagnant around $10 million per year. By 2008, with a national championship in 2006 and Tim Tebow's Heisman in 2007 under their belts, the Gators were bringing in over $15 million annually. By 2010, following another national title in 2008, Florida's ticket revenue was at nearly $18 million.

Ticket-related contributions, the real cash cow in any athletic department, also stand to see a boost following a national title. In 2002, ticket-related contributions at Florida were just over $10 million. By 2008, after a stadium expansion and the two national titles, they passed the $20 million mark, and in 2012 that amount exceeded $35 million.

Schools have also reported seeing increased donations to the university as alumni swell with pride following a national title. Alumni also tend to get more involved with the alumni association, some coming around for the first time in years. Increased contact with alumni, and updated contact information for those who haven't been involved recently, is something a school like Florida State can really capitalize on if they're prepared.

However, most studies suggest the "halo effect" of a national title only lasts for approximately three years without additional success and titles, so the Seminoles will need to get in gear fast to make the most of their national championship.

Despite headaches with Boeing's 787 Dreamliner for travelers and investors alike, there's no question the company soared in 2013 -- up nearly 80% last year. The aviation juggernaut isn't planning to take a breather in 2014 either, and it's kicked off the year with three big headlines.

Boeing secures commitment from Air Algerie. Photo credit: Boeing.

Cha-ching!
On Monday, Boeing announced a commitment from Air Algerie for eight next-generation 737-800 airplanes, a deal worth $724 million at list prices. Boeing's 737 family continues to be the most technologically advanced single-aisle airplane family, and investors cheer the airplane for its market base, superior efficiency, and low operating costs. All of which is good news considering the growth Boeing expects to see in the segment over the next 20 years.

Investors received another positive note from Boeing on Monday when it announced that its largest single-aisle airplane order in the Middle East was finalized. The order from flydubai is for 75 737-MAX 8s and 11 next-generation 737-800s. Those total up to a value of $8.8 billion at list prices, and flydubai retains purchase rights for an additional 25 737 MAXs. As the rest of Boeing's orders from the 2013 Dubai Airshow are finalized, expect to see Boeing's already gigantic order backlog of $415 billion to reach nearly half a trillion. As that happens, 2014 will be an important year for the company to begin ramping up production on its aircraft and improve deliveries to customers and value to shareholders.

Record 2013
Speaking of increasing deliveries in 2014, Boeing closed out 2013 by setting a record for the most commercial airplanes delivered in a single year: 648. Considering Boeing posted company records for deliveries, as well as for unfilled commercial orders, it's no wonder investors were ready to jump into the stock, sending it 80% higher in 2013.

Graph by author. Source: Boeing's 20-year forecast. 

Last year, three programs set records for deliveries. Boeing's 737 program delivered 440 next-generation 737s and its 777 program delivered nearly 100 airplanes. Finally, despite major headaches and doom and gloom headlines, the 787 Dreamliner program delivered 65 airplanes.

"The year ahead will be exciting as we prepare to deliver the first 787-9, continue the design work on our newest programs -- the 737 MAX, 787-10 and 777X -- while increasing our production rates on the 737," said Boeing commercial airplanes president and CEO Ray Conner in a press release. "We'll remain focused on meeting our customer commitments by delivering the best products and services."

On the dotted line
Investors are all hoping to avoid the production delays, problems, and budget overruns seen with Boeing's 787 program as the company looks to begin production of its 777X program. Currently, Boeing's Everett, Wash., plant is producing much of the 777 family. However, the company threatened to take away at least part of the production if the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers union failed to agree to its new contract extension.

The biggest point of controversy on Boeing's new contract offer is that it replaced a pension-like retirement plan with a 401(k) contribution plan. There was much turmoil among union workers about whether they should to try and keep the pension plan at the risk of losing their jobs. The first vote in November rejected Boeing's offer -- 67% of the union voted against the proposal. The workers wanted their pensions, Washington state wanted to secure thousands of jobs, Boeing wanted to cut its pension obligations while customers and investors wanted to make sure production was secured with an experienced workforce that would lead to on-time deliveries.

Politicians close to the development commented that Boeing had said that if last Friday's vote rejected the proposal, it would at the very least take the wing production of its 777X out of Washington state, with the final assembly yet to be determined.

For investors, it's a problem that won't need to be digested as Friday's vote narrowly passed Boeing's new proposal by a 51% to 49% margin. This removes a big uncertainty for investors and also assures Boeing that the machinists' union won't strike until 2024.

Bottom line
Boeing has a lot of momentum carrying it from 2013 into the new year. What's more, it can offer revenue transparency that few companies can on a giant backlog of orders valued between $415 billion and $500 billion, depending on when recent orders are finalized. It's also substantially increased its dividend by 50% to $0.73 per share, and has authorized an additional $10 billion for the company's share repurchase program. The company may not produce an 80% appreciation in share price in 2014, but Boeing has a long track record of delivering shareholder value through multiple avenues -- don't expect that to reverse this year. 

Whole Foods has fallen by nearly 17% since the company provided disappointing sales guidance when it reported earnings on Nov. 6. Players like Kroger and The Fresh Market are increasing their competitive pressure on the company, and this is a relevant risk to watch. However, Whole Foods is still a high-quality business with a lot of room to grow, so the recent dip is looking like a buying opportunity for investors.

The numbers
Sales for 2013 fiscal fourth quarter were $3 billion, an 11% increase versus the same quarter in the previous year on a comparative 12-week basis. Comparable-store sales grew by 5.9% year over year and same-store sales increased by 5.5% during the quarter. This was marginally below Wall Street analysts' expectations, but nothing too worrisome.

The company even managed to deliver growing margins thanks to effective inventory management and improved store-level performance. Gross margin increased by 37 basis points to 35.6% of sales and operating margin grew by 50 basis points to 6.4% of revenues. Earnings per share came in at $0.32, a penny above analyst estimations.

The biggest reason for negativity is that management reduced sales guidance for 2014. Revenues are now expected to be up between 11% and 13% versus a previous range of 12% to 14%, and comparable-store sales are expected to be in the range of 5.5% to 7% versus previous guidance of 6.5% to 8%.

The reasons
Co-CEO John Mackey pointed to several different causes for the disappointing sales and guidance: "While we cannot definitively say what drove the change, we know that several factors including strategic price matching, cannibalization, competition, and currency had a larger negative impact on certain regions in Q4."

Whole Foods is offering more discounts, matching competitors' prices, and adding lower-cost brands to its products assortment to expand into new markets and attract more price-sensitive consumers. New stores seem to be producing some cannibalization, too.

The company has achieved remarkable success in the healthy and organic food segment, and this usually attracts competition. Traditional supermarkets like Kroger have been increasing their presence in organics lately, and smaller-focused competitors like The Fresh Market are expanding rapidly to capitalize on growing demand for their products.

With more than 2,400 store locations and nearly $100 billion in sales, Kroger has a scale advantage that allows it to better leverage fixed costs to compete against smaller rivals. According to President W. Rodney McMullen, the natural and organic food segment is "by far the fastest-growing department on a percentage basis, and sometimes even on a dollar basis it's one of the bigger departments."

The Fresh Market is a materially smaller competitor -- it has 146 stores versus Whole Foods' 367 stores -- but it's growing quickly, as it plans to open a record 22 new stores this year. Total sales at The Fresh Market did better than Whole Foods, with an increase of 13.4% in the last quarter, but comparable-store sales grew by a smaller 3.1% during the period.

The opportunity
Whole Foods benefits from a leading brand in the industry and a reputation for quality. In addition, management is well known for its culture of innovation and efficiency. Even in spite of disappointing sales growth in the last quarter, the company managed to increase profit margins in a challenging environment.

It has been successfully expanding into smaller cities lately, a healthy indication when it comes to long-term growth potential. Management has recently raised its long-term expansion forecast to 1,200 stores in the U.S. alone versus a previous target of 1,000 stores in the country. That's nearly three times the numbers of stores it currently operates globally, and it would still leave room for further international growth.

Whole Foods is one of the major beneficiaries from the secular shift toward healthier nutrition. Even if the environment becomes more challenging for the company due to higher market penetration and increased competition, this profitable growth story is far from over.

Bottom line
Even if growth understandably slows down as the company becomes bigger and competition in the organic and natural food sector increases, Whole Foods is still a remarkably well-run company with a lot of room for expansion. Long-term investors may want to consider the recent dip in this high-quality company a buying opportunity for those who can handle the short-term volatility.

*Warning: This article contains spoilers!

Ruth Negga and Clark Gregg in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. as Raina & Agent Phil Coulson, Image source: Disney/Marvel

Attention Marvel fans: Your favorite show is about to provide some long-awaited answers. Are you ready?

To be sure, the Dec. 10 midseason finale of Disney Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. left viewers hanging after the shocking abduction of Agent Coulson.

And according to lead actor Clark Gregg, tonight's new episode will finally reveal how Coulson was resurrected for the show -- you know, after Loki shanked him to death on the big screen in Marvel's The Avengers.

In fact, Gregg asserted he had to wait months -- just like his fans -- before finding out what happened to his character. At the same time, however, the star insists he thinks fans will be happy, saying:

We're going to get a big fat window at the real truth, and it's going to be very, very surprising. When I read the sequence, I just stopped and put the script down and went, 'Wow. That was worth waiting for.'

What's more, the fallout of the reveal will permeate the remainder of this season, effectively setting up a sticker plot line for fans.

Naturally, the folks over at Disney and ABC are hoping that'll translate to a nice ratings boost for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., especially considering the Live + Same Day rating for its midseason finale fell to a series-low 2.1 in adults 18-49, with a total of "just" 6.11 million viewers.

Then again, that was largely thanks to the perennially massive viewership for season 11 of CBS'  NCIS, which garnered a 2.9 rating on 19.3 million viewers during the same hour.

But that's also not to say Disney is unhappy -- remember, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. so far has improved its time slot for ABC by 86% in adults 18-49, making it the network's top-rated program in the hour in four years.

Better yet, after accounting for DVR viewership in the most recent Live + 7 day numbers, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s 4.8 rating means it goes into tonight's episode as Tuesday's highest-rated series overall for adults 18-49 this season. Meanwhile, NBC's The Voice earned a close second with an impressive 4.6, followed by a distant-third 4.2 rating for CBS' NCIS.

Alas, that hasn't seemed to appease most of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s critics, who can't seem to look past those widely used, increasingly obsolete live + same day numbers.

Of course, Disney wouldn't complain if more NCIS viewers jumped ship tonight. But even if they don't, I'm convinced Marvel fans should rest easy knowing Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be just fine.

In the meantime, here's a sneak peak of tonight's new episode:

It's been a long road coming, including two full months rife with technical glitches on the state and federal side of Obamacare's health exchanges, but the new health-care reform law is now firmly in place, and through the first week of its implementation, everything appears to be running smoothly.

Although we likely won't have firm state-by-state data until next week from the Department of Health and Human Services, I'd call it a pretty conservative estimate that more than 2 million people signed up for health insurance over the past three months, right in time for the insurance coverage cutoff date of Dec. 24, in order to be covered by Jan. 1, 2014.

Still, this figure is pacing well below projections from the HHS, which had forecast 7 million paying enrollees by March 31, the final day to enroll for health insurance coverage without violating the individual mandate in 2014.

Source: White House on Flickr.

When speculation gives way to implementation, perceptions change
Much debate over the past couple of years has been given to who Obamacare would benefit the most, and who would suffer the greatest. Let's face it, no law benefits everyone, and there's bound to be higher costs involved for some groups along the way in order to pay for the complete overhaul of our health-care system. What's interesting, though, is that speculation versus implementation can completely change your perception of who benefits and who doesn't from this controversial law.

For the past couple of years, much emphasis has been placed on the undue burden that middle-class, young adults, and upper-income earners would come to bear from Obamacare. To some extent, this has remained the case, as with young adults who are being counted on by insurers to enroll and balance out the higher medical costs associated with elderly and terminally ill patients.

However, upper-income and middle-class consumers haven't been suffering to the degree that opponents of the law would have projected. Some of that could be pinned on a recovering U.S. economy, which has left consumers with more disposable cash in their pockets. The other often overlooked factor is that while Obamacare itself may be overwhelmingly disliked -- just a 35% favorability rating compared to a 62% disapproval rating according to the latest CNN/ORC International poll -- the desire to have health insurance is overwhelming among upper-income and middle-class citizens. In other words, the ideal for reform is alive and well, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if many of the new enrollees are middle-class Americans.

Low-income individuals and families draw the short straw
Ironically, the subgroup that I feel could be left out in the cold by Obamacare is lower-income individuals and families -- the subset I originally expected to benefit the most.

Don't get me wrong, some locales are going to work out perfectly for low-income individuals and families. Traditionally Democratic states such as California, New York, and Washington, which have welcomed the expansion of their Medicaid programs with open arms, are going to be able to use federal assistance generated through taxation (think the medical device excise tax and surtaxes on investment income for upper-income earners) to help lower-income individuals who can't afford health care on their own.

Unfortunately, around half of the nation's states didn't agree to expand their Medicaid programs, and as a result, millions of low-income citizens are left in health insurance limbo. Before you go berating the states that chose not to expand their Medicaid programs with what was essentially free federal assistance on the table, keep in mind that starting in 2016 and running through 2022, the federal government will scale back its portion of Medicaid cost-covering in participating states from 100% to 90%. In other words, nine years from now, these states contended that they would be paying a considerably higher and potentially unsustainable cost to cover lower Medicaid-eligible people and families.

Although these lower-income individuals are exempt from the individual mandate penalties, Obamacare's beefed-up benefits requirements have dramatically boosted premiums for lower-tier insurance packages, all but ensuring lower-income citizens are priced out of the market. Coupled with half the nation refusing to expand their Medicaid program, including Texas, which is home to the largest number of Medicaid-eligible citizens, lower-income individuals may have drawn the short straw once again.

How this could be bad news for your portfolio
If Obamacare proves of little help to a majority of lower-income individuals in this country, it could portend bad news for select insurers and hospital providers who had been counting on strong enrollment figures.

Aetna and CIGNA , which spent $5.7 billion and $3.8 billion on the acquisitions of Coventry Health Care and HealthSpring, for example, could find that those purchase premiums were far too high in order to move into the government-sponsored health insurance market. WellPoint , even though it ponied up $4.5 billion for Amerigroup, enjoys the privilege of operating in some of the top-performing state exchanges, such as California's. That alone should save it from poor results while Aetna and CIGNA may struggle to meet Wall Street's expectations.

Other insurers, which focused on lower-income households long before these three national insurers entered the fray, may struggle. In particular, Centene , which operates in a number of states that chose not to expand their Medicaid program, could be leaving a lot of potential members on the table because of Obamacare's broadened minimum benefits provisions.

Finally, hospital operator Tenet Healthcare may see minimal positive impact from Obamacare relative to its peers since many of its hospitals are operated in states that aren't expanding Medicaid. In other words, patients that didn't have health insurance because of their income previously still probably won't, and those who did have health insurance still likely do. This means the percentage of revenue that Tenet writes-off as uncollectable each year because of uninsured and underinsured people is unlikely to budge much.