Even by the liberal standards of biotech, Chelsea Therapeutics has given its investors a wild ride as the stock has bounced around on exceptionally mixed data on lead drug Northera. Investors have already faced both the ecstasy of FDA panel approval, and the agony of FDA rejection. Now the shares are rocketing again, jumping almost 100% on Wednesday in the wake of a convincing panel vote in favor of Northera despite a decidedly negative FDA stance in its pre-meeting briefing.

What happens next is anybody's guess. The FDA approves almost 90% of the drugs that are recommended by its panels, and the 16-1 vote on Tuesday would normally be seen as a strong endorsement. Chelsea's data package is one of the messiest I've seen in a long time, but orthostatic hypotension is a significantly under-served market and it doesn't take particularly bold assumptions to derive an appealing target price.

Northera - A Tricky Drug For An Undertreated Condition
Northera is an orally active synthetic precursor of norephinephrine (a pro-drug), intended to relieve the symptoms of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (NOH). NOH causes a sudden, significant fall in blood pressure upon standing, causing a lack of blood to the brain and dizziness, syncope (fainting), and falls.

There are multiple, relatively uncommon, conditions that are often coincident with NOH, including Parkinson's, multiple systems atrophy, and pure autonomic failure. In the Parkinson's population, about 20% of the 60,000 or so people with the disease also experience NOH, but the overall size of the NOH market has been estimated at as many as 300,000 people per year.

Unfortunately, it is not inarguable that Northera is an effective treatment for the condition. The first Phase III study (301) showed a statistically significant improvement in a questionnaire score, but the results for the 302 Phase III study were not statistically significant and the FDA objected to a non-normal distribution of response from one trial site in 301, the removal of which resulted in study failure. Even though an FDA panel voted 7-4 to approve Northera despite the iffy data package, the FDA rejected the drug in March of 2012.

Now there's another study and another shot on goal. The 306B study in Parkinson's patients showed a statistically significant (p=0.018) one-point improvement in mean dizziness at week one (a slightly smaller improvement than seen in the original 301 study). More than 50% of Northera users saw a better than 50% improvement in their dizziness score (p=0.007), and there was a statistically significant improvement in standing systolic blood pressure. There was also an improvement in the rate of falls, but it was not statistically significant.

Even here there are still questions, including the durability of the effect as the 306B study was not designed to confirm long-term efficacy and 8-week data showed a positive trend, but not statistically significant, supporting ongoing dizziness reduction. The 306B study also had two major changes to its statistical analysis plan, including a change in the primary endpoint. Chelsea also excluded patients from the final analysis who dropped out during titration; include them, and the study fails.

Still A Chance, Though
Even though there are real questions about the Northera data, I side with the panelists who voted in favor of the risk-benefit of the drug. There are some serious potential adverse events for Northera, but the event rates for midodrine (a generic often prescribed for NOH) are even worse. If I were the FDA, I would definitely insist on seeing long-term efficacy data on a post-marketing basis, but I would grant approval on the data seen so far.

If the FDA approves Northera, what then? Judging from management's prior statements, it would seem that management expects to charge $12,000 a year for the drug (midorine costs about one-tenth of that, but it is a generic drug). If Chelsea can get 50% share of just the Parkinson's population, that would lead to $72 million in revenue. If the company can get one-third of the patients currently taking midodrine and/or fludrocortisone for NOH (which includes many other contributing conditions beyond Parkinson's), the addressable market approaches $600 million.

Normally I would assign an 85% to 90% chance of approval for a drug in the same position as Northera, but the FDA clearly has issues with this drug. A 50% chance of approval and using only 50% penetration of the Parkinson's patient subset would lead to a fair value of nearly $3/share assuming peak revenue in three years, an 8x sales multiple, and a 13% discount rate. Bump the approval odds to 75% and the target price jumps to $4.25.

I'm going to split the difference and assume a two-thirds chance of approval, but an addressable off-label market that is 50% larger than the size of the Parkinson's market (at 50% penetration). That leads to a $5.65 target, or almost 30% above today's price.

The Bottom Line
Clearly Chelsea has not had an easy path to this point, and there is still a very real chance that the FDA rejects Northera on or before the February 14, 2014 PDUFA date. Northera has been a troubled drug for a long time and I do not believe investors can say unequivocally that it adequately treats NOH. Even so, biotech often comes down to playing the odds and it would seem that the odds still point to upside in these shares for investors who can take on the considerably above-average risks.

Bayer is so confident Xofigo can win prostate-cancer market share from Johnson & Johnson and Medivation this year that it bumped up its original $2.4 billion offer to buy Xofigo's co-developer, Algeta, to $2.9 billion in December.

The closing of that deal nets Bayer full global rights to Xofigo just as sales kick off in the United States and Europe. It's a big and lucrative market, but highly competitive. That means 2014 will be an important year for Bayer in determining whether Xofigo can win business away from Johnson's Zytiga and Medivation's Xtandi, two fast-growing drugs with billion-dollar potential.

A different approach
Bayer hopes Xofigo's more favorable dosing schedule can overcome patient fear over injections and higher prices to win business away from Johnson's oral Zytiga, which is dosed alongside the troublesome steroid prednisone, and Medivation's Xtandi, which isn't dosed with a steroid.

All three drugs effectively improved overall survival versus placebo, but Xofigo may have an advantage given that it's dosed over just six months, rather than the eight months for Zytiga and Xtandi.  

However, Xofigo, which carries a price tag near $70,000 for the full treatment course, is the priciest drug of the three. That may make insurers reluctant to use the drug without fisrt trying Zytiga, which costs roughly $40,000 for a treatment course, or Xtandi, which costs about $56,000. 

Xofigo works differently
Xofigo delivers radium directly to bone tumors in a strategy that reduces damage to surrounding tissue and results in primarily flu-like side effects.

Zytiga targets testosterone production, reducing production from adrenal glands, the testes, and the prostate tumor. The most common side effects patients suffer on Zytiga are flu-like, but additional risks include heartbeat disorders and infection. The dosing alongside prednisone may present additional problems, given that steroids are associated with higher risks of infection.

Xtandi works by preventing testosterone from attaching itself to prostate cancer cells. That effectively starves the tumor. Patients taking Xtandi reported a similar number of side effects as those on Zytiga.

Despite the different approaches, all three drugs successfully extended patient survival during phase 3 trials. Xofigo showed a three-month improvement over placebo. Zytiga and Xtandi showed 3.9- and 4.8-month improvements over placebo, respectively.

A big and growing opportunity
Prostate cancer is the second most widely diagnosed cancer among men, with an estimated 192,000 new cases diagnosed annually in the United States. It's a $12 billion-a-year market expected to grow to $19 billion by 2020.

As a result, Zytiga sales grew more than 75% worldwide to $464 million, as market share in castration-resistant patients climbed to 33% in the third quarter.

However, most of Zytiga's growth occurred overseas. In the U.S., Zytiga sales were roughly $200 million, up just 3%. That suggests that Xtandi, which has only now been launching broadly overseas, may be winning share, given that sales of $109 million were up 32% in the quarter. 

Both Zytiga and Xtandi sales dwarf those of Xofigo, which generated just $17 million in third-quarter sales after winning FDA approval in May.  

But since up to 90% of those with metastatic prostate cancer show signs of having bone metastases, which can significantly affect survival, the market opportunity for Xofigo appears much bigger than its third-quarter sales reflect. 

Fool-worthy final thoughts
Bayer hopes Xofigo doesn't go the way of high-priced injectible Provenge, a drug that hasn't fulfilled its promise for Dendreon , despite being the only immunotherapy targeting prostate cancer on the market. The injectable comes with a steep $93,000 price tag, which has probably contributed to its inability to win significant market share, and Dendreon has since announced dramatic cost-cutting.

Bayer will need to report sizable sales numbers in 2014 to justify that steep buyout price for Algeta. This year will be particularly telling, as Johnson and Johnson is already entrenched overseas and Xtandi is now selling in those markets, too. As Xofigo enters those markets, investors should be able to get insight into which drug is winning by watching sequential growth rates for all three.

Bristol-Myers Squibb  has shown that it is serious about becoming a specialty biopharmaceutical company with an immuno-oncology focus. Although it has some promising compounds both on the market and in the pipeline, competition from Roche and Merck are likely to complicate matters.

The commitment
In November 2013, Bristol-Myers cut R&D staff, severing nearly all discovery work in diabetes, hepatitis C, and neuroscience. The cuts to the crowded and/or risky indications will largely benefit the company's immuno-oncology operations.

Late last year, Bristol-Myers furthered its commitment. Shortly before diabetes treatment Farxiga won approval by the FDA, Bristol-Myers essentially cut its ties to the therapy. On December 19, 2013, AstraZeneca announced that it would acquire Bristol-Myers' stake in their diabetes partnership . Clearly, Bristol-Myers isn't just paying lip-service to restructuring its operations around this promising field of cancer therapy.

Oncology bets aside, the early sale could prove positive for Bristol-Myers. It received $2.7 billion upfront and another $1.4 billion in milestones along with additional sales royalties. Farxiga will face some tough competition with Johnson & Johnson's Invokana. In the near term, it may also compete with Eli Lilly's empagliflozin, another SGLT2 drug currently under FDA review.

Reasons for the excitement
There is plenty of evidence that the immune system recognizes cancerous cells and is capable of eliminating them. In many types of cancer, malignant progression is coupled with severe immunosuppression. In other words, the growth and spreading of tumors usually occurs while the immune system is looking the other way. Investigators once believed tumor cells hid themselves. More recently, researchers understand that tumors effectively blind immune cells to their presence.

Traditional cancer therapies assault normal healthy cells as well cancerous ones. Antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, are a more effective way of precision-bombing cancer cells with chemotherapy payloads. Even ADCs inflict some collateral damage to normal tissues.

What makes drugs like Bristol-Myers's Yervoy and nivolumab so exciting, is that they lack toxic payloads. Although they represent no direct threat to cancer cells, they effectively suppress tumors by removing blindfolds, and allowing the immune system to do its job.

Yervoy
Yervoy has had much better luck gaining traction in the market than its immunotherapy fore-bearers. Launched in March 2011, Yervoy took off like a rocket and hasn't looked back yet. The company recorded an even $700 million in Yervoy sales during the first nine months of 2013. That's an increase of 41% from the same period a year earlier.

Government payers have exhibited a bit of sticker shock over the drug, but they're slowly coming around. A four-dose treatment totals about $120,000, but it may also be the only treatment to effectively extend survival in patients with advanced melanoma.

Payers should grudgingly continue to pay for the treatments following the results of a long term survival study released in September of last year. In a study that included 4,846 patients, it shows three year overall survival of about 21%. More interesting is a sort of plateau that suggests patients surviving past three years often go on for five, even 10 years. The data reaching that far back includes patients from earlier Phase 3 and even Phase 2 trials, but it does point in the right direction.

Nivolumab
It appears that Bristol-Myers is about to repeat Yervoy's success. Some tumors secrete PD-L1 and PD-L2, which trigger the destruction of nearby activated T-cells. Nivolumab prevents these molecules from reaching their target. This allows the immune response to tumor cells to continue.

Combined with Yervoy, and on its own, nivolumab has shown some promising results. In October 2013, the company released data from a Phase 1 trial involving patients with multiple forms of cancer. One highlight included heavily pretreated lung cancer patients. Survival rates with nivolumab were 42% at one year, and 24% at two years. The therapy is in the middle of several Phase 3 studies and a biologics license application (BLA) for at least one indication is likely this year.

An anti-PDL1 competitor
Bristol-Myers isn't the only drug major with an eye on this pathway. Roche is in early development stages with an anti-PDL1 therapy. In September 2013, Roche released data from a Phase 1 trial that showed it similarly effective as nivolumab in advanced lung cancer patients. It is difficult to do an apples-to-apples assessment with the limited data, but there is a solid chance that nivolumab will eventually compete with this therapy.

Merck breaking through
It seems that Merck has a serious anti-PD1 contender. Recently, the company started a rolling BLA submission for MK-3475. This gives regulators a chance to review portions of the application as the company can make them available. It seems the FDA is serious about getting this one to the public as fast as possible, in April 2013 it was given the new Breakthrough Therapy designation for advanced melanoma.

Final take
Streamlining has its benefits, but it also leaves the company far less diversified. With one year forward price-to-earnings ratio above 30 after shares appreciated 62% in 2013, a great deal of optimism about the immuno-oncology programs are already priced into shares of Bristol-Myers. Any misstep, or increased threats from the competitors are likely to be amplified in its price. This is a great company with an exciting future, but things might get choppier than investors expect.

When it comes to paying taxes, nobody wants to pay any more than they have to. But some taxes just seem patently unfair on their face, designed to take advantage of those least able to pay them.

In the following video, Dan Caplinger, The Motley Fool's director of investment planning, looks at what might be the most surprising tax anyone ever has to pay. Dan notes that those who receive unemployment insurance benefits are often surprised to find out that those benefits are subject to federal income tax. Dan points out that given their function of providing minimal income support to recipients, taxing unemployment benefits seems contrary to public policy. Yet he also notes that the idea makes some sense, as unemployment benefits are designed to replace wages, so treating them like wages has some justification. Dan concludes by noting that some states are smart enough to make unemployment benefits exempt from state income tax, but for the federal government, recipients don't have much choice.

ETFs (exchange-traded funds) can be a great addition to your retirement portfolio at any stage in the game. Whether you are a new investor or are nearing retirement, ETFs can be the perfect solution for diversifying your portfolio and gaining market exposure while keeping expenses low.

While ETFs have many upsides, there are some things you should consider before jumping in.

How active of an investor are you?
One of the biggest advantages ETFs offer in contrast to mutual funds is that they can be traded like a stock, but they generally require more work than investing in mutual funds.

Bid-ask spread
Liquidity can make a big difference when it comes to trading ETFs. The more heavily traded an ETF is, the smaller the bid-ask spread will be. In a heavily traded ETF, the bid-ask spread naturally narrows because there are plenty of buyers and sellers.

For example, iShares MSCI Emerging Markets is a heavily traded ETF. Averaging around 63.5 million shares in daily trading volume for the last three months, this ETF is unlikely to have a bid-ask spread of more than a few cents at any given time. A heavily traded fund like iShares MSCI Emerging Markets is optimal for investors who do not want to spend hours watching the bid-ask spread waiting for just the right moment to pull the trigger.

Premium/discount
Similarly, ETFs trade at a premium or a discount. Unlike mutual funds, which trade at a single price for the day, ETFs trade at a premium or discount in relation to their underlying net asset value. For investors who buy and hold, this is less important. If you are an investor who has entered the ETF market because you like to trade a lot, however, it is important to be aware that bid-ask spreads and premiums and discounts can affect your returns positively or negatively over the long run.

An extreme example of premium/discount swing is iShares MSCI Philippines , which experienced a more-than 10% swing in premium and discount over nine days last June. Investors looking to make a large buy at that particular moment could have unknowingly become winners or losers without even trying. This low-volume ETF also experiences big gaps in bid-ask spread because it does not trade nearly the volume of other ETFs. This fund only trades an average of about 200,000 shares on a daily basis, and bid-ask spreads can be more than $1.50 per share. Compare that with iShares MSCI Emerging Markets, which trades 185 times that many shares in a single day on average and usually has a bid-ask spread of about a penny.

Automatic investing
Many investors like to put their savings on autopilot. If you prefer to "set it and forget it," investing in mutual funds may be a better choice. Most brokerages offer periodic investing options for mutual funds on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. Periodic investing is only available for mutual funds, not ETFs. Investors who like to dollar-cost average by spreading their buys throughout the year should consider sticking with mutual funds. Most brokerages waive fees for periodic investing and allow investors to make smaller buys after their initial buy into the fund. Keep in mind that if you choose to purchase ETFs on a monthly basis instead, there are usually fees that will accompany each trade.

Will ETFs help you reduce fees?
Nothing erodes the value of a retirement account faster than fees. They may seem small, but over time they add up. Over the course of 30 or 40 years of saving, the difference of 1% in fees can be the difference between retiring comfortably and having to work a lot longer.

ETFs offer tremendous value when it comes to fees. For example, Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF offers investors exposure to mostly large-cap emerging-market stocks at a very low 0.18% expense ratio. Given the net average expense ratio of 0.58% for the category, investors who buy and hold stand to save a substantial amount of money over the long term.

ETFs are often less expensive than their mutual-fund counterparts. While the expense ratios of ETFs may be lower than a mutual fund with similar holdings, it is important to factor in other expenses, such as commission charges. Some brokerages offer commission-free trades on certain ETFs. This can be a great way to save money in fees when trading ETFs; however, it is important to carefully examine the ETF to make sure it will help you meet your goals. Cheap doesn't always mean good.

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.

Gold prices jumped to their best levels in 2014 today, as a poor reading from the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Index led to some uncertainty about whether the Federal Reserve will taper its bond-buying activity as quickly as some fear. Spot gold prices jumped $11 per ounce, to $1,254, sending the SPDR Gold Trust to gains of nearly 1%. Silver rose $0.23 per ounce, to $20.33, with iShares Silver rising 0.8% on the session. Platinum led the way higher today with a $22 rise, to $1,451, while palladium picked up $6 per ounce, to $747.

One factor that always plays a role in the platinum market is the state of the labor market in South Africa, which has some of the world's biggest platinum producers. With reports of a strike vote against Impala Platinum and Lonmin in South Africa, a temporary drop in platinum production could support prices in the near term. If workers at Anglo American follow suit, it could hurt the three top producers, and bring more than half of the world's platinum output to a standstill.

Image sources: Wikimedia Commons; Creative Commons/Armin Kubelbeck.

Also helping to bolster the market were positive calls from Morgan Stanley in the metals markets. The analyst sees palladium and copper performing best, but it made a full-year gold forecast of $1,313 per ounce, with platinum coming in at $1,639, and silver at $21. Supply conditions in the platinum-group metals make the area more attractive than gold, given the negative impact that Fed tapering will likely have on gold demand.

Mining stocks performed well, with the Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF climbing 3%. Smaller miners posted even sharper gains, with AuRico Gold gaining more than 7% on the general strength in the market. The company's preliminary operational results announced earlier this week included operational results that just hit the lower end of its production guidance, although cash costs at $676 for the full 2013 year came in above guidance of $565 to $645 per ounce, due largely to much higher-than-expected costs at its Young-Davidson mine. Still, AuRico has room to run higher if gold prices can maintain their higher levels from here.

Even somewhat disappointing news got positive results. Coeur Mining said that silver production actually dropped 6% for the full 2013 year, with production levels at 17 million ounces. Yet, gold production hit a record of just over 262,000 ounces, rising 16%. Coeur gave production guidance that points to modest growth in silver production at the expense of roughly 10% to 15% reduction in gold production levels. Favorable cost projections could help the company be more profitable in the future, even as Coeur tries to emphasize higher-margin operations over simply maximizing output volume.

Investors can take heart from the recent gains in gold, which have defied expectations that 2014 would continue to be a weak year for precious metals. Still, gold could face plenty of headwinds throughout the remainder of the year, making 2014 a challenging year for those trying to pick a direction for the gold market.

This week, endlessly troubled retailer J.C. Penney announced that it would be cutting 2,000 jobs and closing dozens of stores. The reason makes enough sense -- shutting down underperforming stores so that resources are more effectively allocated to the winning parts of the company (to be determined). Realistically, though, this doesn't sound like the hopelessly optimistic department store that took major risks in changing course; rather, it seems like the usual MBA-mandated cost-cutting maneuvers. In these darkest days of J.C. Penney, is management out of ideas?

Bye-bye
You can't really blame Penney for this latest announcement. The company needs to keep the coffers filled enough to keep the lights on, and that means trimming the fat. The problem is, there is no bone in this beast -- it's all fat.

This is a common tactic to stop the bleeding, but a temporary one at best. Though it failed spectacularly, Penney could be commended for taking chances. It tried to reinvent itself as a retailer, and chose retail's best guy to do it. Sadly, the effort resulted in alienating the existing customer base and attracting roughly zero new ones -- but it was a real, non-Harvard Business School effort on management's behalf.

Today, Penney sounds like many other struggling retailers. The numbers are heard louder than anything else, and shutting down the worst of the worst will save millions -- not to mention the reduced employee expense.

It's simply not a solution to a problem that, as of yet, the company has not even begun to solve.

Silver lining
What good could come out of this besides a less dreadful quarterly earnings report? If management treats the freed-up funds not as money saved but as more money available for deployment, then the effort makes sense.

Penney doesn't need to boost its cash or focus on paying down debt -- those are strategies for companies with stable business models. With whatever the company saves from its closures, management should further invest in fixing the actual problem: People see no reason to shop at Penney.

And then, there is the more financially sound strategy: Prepare to take the company off life support and let the liquidation value analysts drive the stock price higher in hopes of dissolution.

Although the real estate market continues to show signs of a robust comeback, new data revealing slightly more housing starts in December than expected failed to lift markets. A housing start is logged on the day construction begins on a new, primarily residential, property. U.S. builders broke ground at the rate of about 1 million units a year in December, which was a lower level than the month before, but a 1.6% increase from December 2012. Earnings season held more sway over the stock market today, though results failed to dazzle Wall Street and the S&P 500 Index fell seven points, or 0.4%, to end at 1,838. 

Far from feeling dazzled, Best Buy shareholders probably feel shock and profound disappointment after a lackluster holiday performance sent the stock plummeting. After shedding nearly 30% yesterday, Best Buy stock fell another 9% Friday, giving shareholders a long weekend to reflect on their staggering losses. The electronics retailer's inability to compete with low-overhead online rivals looks to be a serious long-term issue as reflected by Best Buy's 0.9% same-store sales decline during the holiday period. 

Micron Technology slipped 3.2% today, although its slump was mostly due to being in the same line of business as rival Intel, which saw shares fall 2.6% today after a poor earnings report. Intel also said it would eliminate about 5% of its global workforce by the end of the year in an effort to save money and reduce inefficiencies. Wall Street may, however, be drawing inferences too readily in this case; Micron already reported results for the quarter ending in late November, and sales surged more than 120% from the year before. Both companies are fighting desperately for market share in the mobile segment as the age of the PC slowly wanes.

Finally, shares of United States Steel shed 3.2%, and for a strange reason. Simply put, domestic steel producers have been too successful recently, and now face heightened expectations that will be tougher to live up to. Citigroup sees the stock's six-month run-up as a risky sign to investors, especially considering the global economics at play. American steel sells for substantial premiums to steel from other major global markets, a dynamic the Wall Street investment bank sees as unsustainable. On top of that, Ford's bold decision to produce a lighter F150 by using aluminum parts in lieu of steel doesn't bode well for future demand from the auto industry.

Last year was an unusually good one for stocks. Not only did markets leap higher, but the gains were evenly felt across every sector. Almost all of the Dow Jones Industrial Average's 30 components improved in 2013, and the top five contributors kicked in just 16% of the Dow's total gains, as compared to 59% in 2012.

The market's mostly steady march led to 23% overall gains, helping leaders like Boeing and 3M rise by 80% and 50%, respectively.

Yet even through that broad-based, year-long rally, most of the market's gains actually occurred over just a handful of trading days:

BA data by YCharts.

In the video below, Fool contributor Demitrios Kalogeropoulos discusses the seven trading days that can explain much of the Dow's rise last year. He notes that they represented just 2.7% of all trading days and yet accounted for a massive 50% of the market's annual rise. The takeaway, he argues, is that jumping in and out of stocks is an extremely risky strategy, as missing just one of these days would have been a recipe for underperformance.

Some interesting recent changes in estate tax planning rules will be useful for individuals and families with relatively high net worth or those who have set aside money or invested in order to gift future generations or hand down money through an estate process.

Sources like MoneyWatch are going over the details of new expansions on tax-free gifts that are going to apply in 2014. These include a hike in the overall unified estate and gift tax exclusion amount -- from $5.25 million to $5.34 million.

A similar increase was made for generation-skipping transfer tax exemptions, MoneyWatch reported. The federal government also expanded the foreign earned income exclusion, though by a relatively small amount, from $97,600 to $99,200 -- a rise of $1,600, or approximately 1.5%.

The new rules for general annual gift exclusions will have a $14,000 cap, which is significantly up from previous years; as late as 2000, the cap was still at the round number of $10,000, which shows it has been rising rapidly since then. Another change involves larger annual gifts to noncitizen spouses, where the annual exclusion is an astounding $145,000.

Practical applications to estate tax planning
For many families, the increase in annual gift exclusions is going to be more immediately practical than the overall estate tax number. Not many families have anything approaching the range of $5 million, which is now adequately covered by overall exclusions.

For individuals who want to bestow more of their wealth during their lifetime, the annual gift exclusion is actually a relevant detail. It shows what is tax-compliant in terms of transferring smaller amounts of money each year, rather than waiting until the estate-handling process to dole out much larger amounts of capital.

Most families are off the hook for federal estate taxes
What these changes reveal is that as officials use items like the Consumer Price Index to push up the estate tax exclusions, the vast majority of estates will be parceled out relatively tax-free.

With that in mind, it's important to note that the estate tax process doesn't cover many different kinds of financial liabilities that tend to diminish or even erase estate capital by the end of an individual's life. Many of these are related to the provisions of Medicare and Medicaid in terms of end-of-life care -- for example, skilled nursing care costs and expenses related to common health conditions for the elderly.

For families that want to preserve as much of an estate as possible, it's critically important to think ahead and address issues related to end-of-life costs before an individual even enters the Medicare system -- or, failing that, before they end up needing the kinds of expensive services that may not be covered by these social safety nets for seniors.

With so much of a political focus on entitlement programs and their continued administration, there's even more of an urgency for families to consider retirement costs as part of a comprehensive way to address estate tax planning. However, it's also necessary to keep a close eye on these kinds of actual federal tax rules on transferring wealth through generations. A family that needs to set up more particular systems to avoid different kinds of financial liability can look at the generation of specialized trusts and custodial accounts that can apply to a multigenerational financial-planning process.

It's also important to look at another piece of the pie, which is retirement investment. Good IRA planning helps to grow capital tax-free; good estate planning helps individuals to preserve the resulting capital for future generations.

21st Century Fox wants to be more like Marvel, and it's hired writer-producer Simon Kinberg to help realize its goal, says Fool contributor Tim Beyers in the following video.

The deal, revealed exclusively to The Hollywood Reporter last month, gives Fox first-look rights to Kinberg's Genre Films projects. But there's also more to it: Specifically, Fox wants Kinberg to expand its X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises into an interlocking movie universe. "I have a lot of ideas on how to buil[d] those brands and do what everybody is thinking of these days: Be like Marvel," Kinberg told THR.

He's referring specifically to the idea of creating a shared universe where the X-Men and FF interact with one another and related characters. Fox consultant Mark Millar -- a well-known comic-book creator in his own right -- has expressed a similar view in public interviews. My guess is they'll begin collaborating soon if they haven't already. What would that mean at the box office? At the very least, a more regular cadence of Marvel movies developed by Fox, but with interrelated plots and more recurring characters.

We've already seen this dynamic at work in last summer's The Wolverine, which features an end credit that we now know teases May's X-Men: Days of Future Past. That film, in turn, will likely include a teaser for either 2015's Fantastic Four reboot or X-Men: Apocalypse, which is due in 2016. Either way, Tim says, all signs point to Fox matching Walt Disney when it comes to bringing Marvel movies to the big screen.

Do you agree? What do you want to see from Fox's Marvel team? Please watch the video to get Tim's full take and then leave a comment to let us know where you stand.

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 Electronic Arts were heading to the next level today, finishing up 12% after an analyst upgrade and a strong December sales report.

So what: CRT Capital initiated a buy rating on EA, saying it was particularly enthused about the March release of "Titanfall," as well as the company's popular FIFA soccer games as the World Cup in Brazil is set for this summer. Analyst Neil Doshi explained the move, saying, "Video game stocks trade on game slates." Shares also got a boost as the NPD Group said that EA sales increased 40% in December despite an overall decline in the industry, as three of its games were among the top 10 sellers.

Now what: Both items are certainly promising for the video game maker, but Doshi's observation that industry stocks move on game slates can work both ways. Video games are trendy, and while the company has a handful of strong franchises, including Madden and FIFA, consumer tastes often shift. Despite endorsement of EA, Doshi added that the stock is "not for the faint of heart," a point worth remembering. 

Wal-Mart Stores has received a lot of negative press for the way it treats its employees for years. And the U.S. government just charged Wal-Mart with the violation of the rights of workers. This primarily stems from accusations that Wal-Mart intimidated employees who threatened to strike against the company.

OUR Walmart has been protesting Wal-Mart since 2012, demanding higher pay. Wal-Mart has fired at least 19 people who took part in protests, despite these workers being protected under the National Labor Relations Act. As in most cases, there will be three sides to this story, OUR Walmart's side, Wal-Mart's side, and the truth, which is somewhere in the middle.

While it's impossible to know all the cold-hard facts related to this dispute, it is possible to know if Wal-Mart underpays its employees compared to its peers. This is possible thanks to Glassdoor.com, where employees anonymously leave information about salaries, their experiences, and more.

Moral or immoral?
According to Glassdoor, the average Wal-Mart sales associate makes $8.89 per hour, and the average cashier earns $8.64 per hour.

Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world, and it consistently delivers large profits. For example, its 2012 profit totaled $15.7 billion. That's a big number. However, it was a 4.6% decline from 2011. Due to waning demand, Wal-Mart had to cut prices in order to drive more traffic to its stores. This was an effective maneuver, which led to a 6% increase in revenue to $447 billion. We don't yet know the results of 2013.

What we do know is that any company that has been forced to slash its prices isn't going to rush to increase employee pay. That's Business 101. If you have a dislike for Wal-Mart for moral reasons, that's understandable. If you're looking at Wal-Mart as a potential investment, then despite recent negative news, you might want to keep in mind that Wal-Mart is the epitome of capitalism. 

Pay comparisons
Take another quick glance at the employee pay numbers above for Wal-Mart. Now consider the average pay for some Target employees. According to Glassdoor, the average pay for someone on the sales floor is $8.36 per hour. And the average pay for a cashier is $8.14 per hour. This is lower than Wal-Mart. The big difference is culture. 

Target employees appear to be happier than Wal-Mart employees. Wal-Mart employees have rated their employer a 2.9 of 5, and only 47% of employees would recommend the company to a friend. Furthermore, only 49% of employees approve of CEO Michael Duke. This should be expected since he earned $19.3 million in 2012.

Target employees have rated their employer a 3.3 of 5, and 62% of employees would recommend the company to a friend. A solid 72% of employees approve of CEO Gregg W. Steinhafel.

Then there's Costco Wholesale . The average pay for a cashier at Costco is $15.06 per hour, the average sales assistant earns $11.59 per hour, the average food-court worker makes $11.75 per hour, and the average stocker brings in $12.82 per hour. These are much higher numbers than both Wal-Mart and Target. 

Costco employees have rated their employer a 3.8 of 5, and an impressive 83% of employees would recommend the company to a friend. Furthermore, 93% of employees approve of CEO Craig Jelinek. Needless to say, the company culture at Costco is excellent. The turnover rate for employees working at Costco more than one year is less than 6%, and for executives, it's less than 1%. As if that's not impressive enough, 70% of warehouse managers are hired internally.

The bottom line
Costco treats its employees better than its peers. Therefore, if you're looking for a moral investment -- without sacrificing growth potential -- you might want to consider Costco. As far as Target goes, it has other concerns to deal with at the moment, and it might be a while before the stock can find some solid footing.

When it comes to Wal-Mart, one former employee on Glassdoor put it best, stating that "It's a good entry-level job that teaches fundamental skills." There is no reason for Wal-Mart to increase pay for its employees unless those employees possess a specific skill. Recent headlines might lead to negative public sentiment for Wal-Mart, but that already exists. Those who dislike Wal-Mart will continue to dislike Wal-Mart. Others will continue to shop there.

In other words, recent headlines regarding the intimidation of workers threatening to strike, and low pay, should have no significant impact on the underlying business or stock price. Wal-Mart should remain a quality long-term value investment. 

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.

Disappointing results from General Electric and Intel weighed on the major indexes on Friday, as the S&P 500 fell 0.39%. The narrower Dow Jones Industrial Average managed to gain 0.25%.

The end of the week is a good opportunity for calling out pundits and experts. Today, it's the turn of Wharton School professor Jeremy Stocks for the Long Run Siegel, who told CNBC yesterday:

We're much closer to fair market value [in the stock market] now than we were a year or two ago. I still think we are below fair market value; I still think we got 10% to 15% to get there, in the markets. We know nothing goes in a straight line up to fair market value; we know nothing goes in a straight line up to fair market value, it either has a correction or will overshoot, but I'm calling for around 18,000, 18,500 is what I think is the fair value for the Dow.

It would appear that, for Prof. Siegel, there's no level at which stocks ought not to be higher. Not everyone agrees. Back on Sep. 19, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett told CNBC that stocks were:

...probably more or less fairly priced now. We don't find bargains around, but we don't think things are way overvalued either. We're having a hard time finding things to buy.

Since then, the Dow has risen by 5.2%. If we accept Buffett's assessment that the market was fairly valued in September, then it can be no better than fairly valued today. Indeed, it's generous to assume that fair value has increased by 5% in four months, given that the current consensus estimates for Dow operating earnings imply just 7.3% growth in 2014. As such, the notion that the Dow remains 10% undervalued seems difficult to justify at present, with a range of valuation indicators now suggesting the market is, at best, fairly valued, with some suggesting a degree of overvaluation.

However, it does not surprise me from Prof. Siegel, who is an inveterate bull. However, I'll admit that the margin of error around the market's valuation could certainly be plus or minus 10% -- this isn't an exact science. Whether or not it is warranted, I agree with Prof. Siegel wholeheartedly that the market can still go higher. We're not in a stock market bubble and, as Prof. Siegel observes:

What I still think is a push in the market: I still don't think the public is back. I mean they're tiptoeing in, but when you look at the flows into the equity funds, it's not there... When you go to the general investing public, they're still very skeptical. We got to bring them much more in until we get to the top of a bull market.

I don't much like the tone of the last sentence, in which he appears to unwittingly (and rather accurately, I might add) lump himself in with the stock market cheerleaders pulling individual investors into the market in order for them to form a market top.

Because we're not in a stock market bubble, these debates on the market's valuation may appear a bit picayune and, to a degree, they are. Focus on saving and investing regularly and, if you're picking stocks, concentrate on defensible franchises that are trading at acceptable (or attractive, ideally) prices. If you can do that, you needn't bother listening to pundits like Jeremy Siegel (or his critics.)

With so many different investments to choose from, it can be hard to know all of them. But with some little-known investments like closed-end funds, the opportunity comes from most people's complete unfamiliarity with them.

In the following video, Dan Caplinger, The Motley Fool's director of investment planning, looks at how closed-end funds work. Dan notes that unlike regular mutual funds, closed-end funds have mixed numbers of shares, allowing them to trade at discounts to the value of their underlying assets from time to time. Dan explains how well-known managers Franklin Templeton , Eaton Vance , and AllianceBernstein , as well as PIMCO and Nuveen, use closed-end funds to ensure a solid base of assets under management without worrying about redemptions. Dan recommends looking at liquidity and fees in order to separate out the best closed-end funds from the rest.

The Department of Defense awarded seven new defense contracts Friday, worth $591.3 million in total. United Technologies didn't win the biggest contract -- but it did win the second biggest.

More precisely, it was UTC subsidiary Goodrich Corp which won the day's second biggest contract, a $183 million firm-fixed-price contract action of as-yet indeterminate scope, to perform in-country setup and installation of ground stations for the Royal Saudi Air Force's DB110 Reconnaissance Systems.

Incorporating "pods" mounted on a combat aircraft, DB110 is a long-range sensor system that can capture images day or night to assist a pilot in tasks such as assessing damage from a missile strike. The system can also transmit these images to intelligence officers on the ground in real time.

Work under this contract is to be completed by July 23, 2021.

The Department of Defense awarded seven new defense contracts Friday, worth $591.3 million in total. One of the bigger awards handed out went to "Humvee" manufacturer AM General, which won a $48 million contract to produce High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheel Vehicle parts for the U.S. Army. Meanwhile, among publicly traded firms:

Leidos Holdings  won a $62.5 million indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for Mission Planning and Analysis Common Services, under which it wil perform software engineering, integration, technical support, and training work for the U.S. Air Force through Aug. 9, 2019.

Also, Northrop Grumman received a $33 million cost-plus-fixed-fee completion job order to design and build "operational test program sets" for use in repairing AN/ALQ 240 electronic warfare equipment aboard Navy P-8A Poseidon subhunting aircraft. This contract should run through September 2019.

Compared to some of the big-name debuts at this week's North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Fuji Heavy Industries' Subaru might seem fairly minor -- but it's a big deal for Subaru performance fans. The company unwrapped its all-new 2015 WRX STI in an event on Tuesday that was attended by throngs of international media members.

Subaru took the wraps off of its 2015 WRX STI in Detroit on Tuesday. The Motley Fool had a close-up look. Photo credit: Subaru.

We -- The Motley Fool's John Rosevear and Rex Moore -- were among the crowd, and after things had quieted down a bit, we were able to get up close with Subaru's new rocket. As with earlier generations, the new STI builds on the WRX, offering a more dramatic, pumped-up version of the high-performance all-wheel-drive experience.

The new model retains the wild rear wing that has become an STI trademark, but it's more sophisticated than its predecessor. As with the Impreza and the "regular" WRX, the STI's interior has taken a solid step forward. It's a comfortable place to do business -- and that business will happen at a rapid pace, thanks to some key improvements to the WRX STI's all-wheel-drive system that should make it the best-handling version ever.

You can get an automatic transmission on the regular WRX, but on the STI, a six-speed manual is the only way to go. Photo credit: Subaru.

We filed a full video report on the new Subaru with our first impressions right from the show floor in Detroit. Check it out below, and then scroll down to leave a comment with your thoughts: Does Subaru have a winner with the new WRX and STI?

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.

Stocks were a tale of two markets Friday, as the Dow and S&P 500 moved in different directions. The Dow rose due largely to some high-profile gains in two influential card network companies, but broader market measures fell almost half a percent. Still, the gloomy mood didn't hold back shares of Electronic Arts , Illumina , or BlackBerry , each of which posted solid gains today.

Electronic Arts rose 12%, defying a negative trend that affected most of the video game industry over the holidays. Although the NPD Group cited an overall decline in sales of console and handheld-game software during December, it also highlighted EA's latest entries in the Battlefield, Madden, and FIFA series among the top 10 sellers for the month. An analyst at Cowen argued that EA's total sales jumped 40%, allowing the stock to avoid the fate that game retailer GameStop suffered earlier in the week. Moreover, analysts at CRT Capital recommended the stock, setting a $26 price target on the game maker's shares.

Illumina gained 9% after giving details about its strategic road map last night in a press release. The genetics company expects to expand its use of next-generation sequencing technology in areas like the reproductive health and oncology fields, as well as attacking emerging markets. Moreover, Illumina presented products to simplify preparation and analysis of genetic samples, along with its plans for increasing use of genomics in clinics. With some setting the size of Illumina's potential market at $20 billion, the stock could have further to run even after its big gains lately.

BlackBerry picked up 6% after getting a rare positive recommendation from renowned short-selling research group Citron Research. Citron believes that despite BlackBerry's failure to capitalize on its smartphone opportunities, it still has potential as an enterprise software company. With new CEO John Chen taking substantial steps in that direction, Citron put a $15 price target on the stock. Given the number of short-sellers who have bet against BlackBerry, any kind of squeeze could easily send shares soaring higher in the weeks and months to come, even without any fundamental company news.

At the beginning of 2014, two states opened the floodgates for the marijuana trade, as both Washington and Colorado legalized its sale, possession, and consumption for recreational purposes.

Yet there continues to be one major threat to the industry that's making it tough for participants to stay on the right side of the law even in states like these. In the following video, Motley Fool contributor John Maxfield, the author of a recent in-depth series on the industry, digs into the problem that the U.S. tax code is presenting to burgeoning cannabis entrepreneurs.