NFL Weekly Picks 2023

[touch]

 Super Bowl Picks 

 

chisag                      KC                        OVER                55

imk                           San Fran              OVER                62

DKnight                    KC                        Under               26

P3P                           KC                       OVER                58

TL                             KC                        OVER                51

touch                        KC                       OVER                53

doc                          San Fran               Over                 51 

 

              

Lines for Picks

 

Kansas City       San Fran -2        47

 

 

Playoff Standing After Conference Championship

 

210 Pts - NJBF

205 Pts - Touch

185 Pts - Hickory

175 Pts - NSX

                QQQ

170 Pts - Chisag

                Triple Lindy

160 Pts - Tatertot

150 Pts - Doc

130 Pts - CHuntsman

120 Pts - Dark Knight

110 Pts - imKirby

 95 Pts - NCLancer

 75 Pts - P3P

[touch]

210 Pts - NJBF

205 Pts - Touch

 

Well what is that all about? The only two who are on the Picks Contest's payroll because of their season long administrative duties find themselves at the top in the Playoffs.

The fix is in. 😄

 

 

[touch]

Coming next Sunday as well as a few others.

 

 

 

 

[dashanks]

21 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... I will push back on this juuuuuust a little. I think super stars are over-valued. Waaaaaay over-valued. But the rank and file athletes/actors are just doing what they have done throughout history. Providing valuable entertainment that takes you away from the stresses of everyday life and allows you to dream. Making a good living is enough and that's what the majority that are successful do. So that character in a movie or TV show you loved and that offensive tackle that didn't give up a sack all game deserve our admiration while they are performing and that's it. What they do away from the field/camera should be mostly irrelevant. I love Hard Knocks as it gives us an inside look at the workings of a Pro Team. But when they branch off to their personal lives, I usually fast forward. 

... Here is something that might surprise you. We read about the insane salaries or the demands of a TV star(s) that want more than the $250k they make a show. But in order to qualify for full health care SAG benefits you have to make $35,000 a year. Less than 5% of ALL Screen Actors Guild members qualify. 95% of all working actors make less than $35k a year. 

 

No disagreement here.  But just as an illustration, in 2021 Dwayne Johnson made $270,000,000.   If we say the average teacher's salary was $70,000, that would mean that the Rock made as much money as 3,857 teachers combined.  WTF?   Again, I don't begrudge him one nickel of it.  It's just a sad commentary on what we see as valuable in this country.  

[chisag]

1 hour ago, dashanks said:

No disagreement here.  But just as an illustration, in 2021 Dwayne Johnson made $270,000,000.   If we say the average teacher's salary was $70,000, that would mean that the Rock made as much money as 3,857 teachers combined.  WTF?   Again, I don't begrudge him one nickel of it.  It's just a sad commentary on what we see as valuable in this country.  

 

 

... I couldn't agree more. But I think the greed of Corporate America is infinitely more guilty than Film/Athletes. At least they actually work hard for a living. Banks gouge their customers and the board and CEO's reward themselves with billions in salaries and bonuses for doing basically nothing. That is the money I would like to see going to teachers, nurses, and trades people we depend on much more than banking that does little for the average consumer. 



 

Big bank executives earned huge salaries in 2022, while they gave their depositors nearly nothing in interest on their cash. Of the average 20 largest banks in the U.S., the average CEO salary was about $18 million in 2022. Meanwhile, the average savings account earned a meager 0.13% throughout the year according to the St. Louis Fed. This means that on a $10,000 savings balance, you would have earned $13 over the course of the year. 

 

Bank CEOs continue to rake in cash, while paying customers almost nothing. And while depositors continue to get the short end of the stick, those same CEOs earned a cumulative $360 million in total compensation in 2022 alone. 

 

Despite the economic uncertainty in 2022, executives of large banks continued to make serious coin. I scoured the internet looking for information on the top 20 banks and their leaders’ salaries in 2022, and here’s what I found: 

• The below CEOs made about $18 million in total compensation in 2022 
• The salaries range from $8 million to nearly $40 million in 2022 

[Qqq123xx]

SUPER BOWL PICKS

 

  K.C.   +2         OVER

 

  T.P.   66         35-31

 

 

 

[dashanks]

6 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... I couldn't agree more. But I think the greed of Corporate America is infinitely more guilty than Film/Athletes. At least they actually work hard for a living. Banks gouge their customers and the board and CEO's reward themselves with billions in salaries and bonuses for doing basically nothing. That is the money I would like to see going to teachers, nurses, and trades people we depend on much more than banking that does little for the average consumer. 



 

Big bank executives earned huge salaries in 2022, while they gave their depositors nearly nothing in interest on their cash. Of the average 20 largest banks in the U.S., the average CEO salary was about $18 million in 2022. Meanwhile, the average savings account earned a meager 0.13% throughout the year according to the St. Louis Fed. This means that on a $10,000 savings balance, you would have earned $13 over the course of the year. 

 

Bank CEOs continue to rake in cash, while paying customers almost nothing. And while depositors continue to get the short end of the stick, those same CEOs earned a cumulative $360 million in total compensation in 2022 alone. 

 

Despite the economic uncertainty in 2022, executives of large banks continued to make serious coin. I scoured the internet looking for information on the top 20 banks and their leaders’ salaries in 2022, and here’s what I found: 

• The below CEOs made about $18 million in total compensation in 2022 
• The salaries range from $8 million to nearly $40 million in 2022 

I don't see it as greed at all by the actors/athletes.  They're getting fair market value for their talents.  I'm just fascinated by the whole dynamic.  How does one actor make 3/4 of those CEO's combined compensation? 

[touch]

 Super Bowl Picks 

 

chisag                      KC                        OVER                55

imk                           San Fran              OVER                62

DKnight                    KC                        Under               26

P3P                           KC                       OVER                58

TL                             KC                        OVER                51

touch                        KC                       OVER                53

doc                          San Fran               Over                 51

QQQ                         KC                        Over                 66 

 

              

Lines for Picks

 

Kansas City       San Fran -2        47

[chisag]

2 hours ago, dashanks said:

I don't see it as greed at all by the actors/athletes.  They're getting fair market value for their talents.  I'm just fascinated by the whole dynamic.  How does one actor make 3/4 of those CEO's combined compensation? 

 

 

... The Big Stars get a percentage of the box office, DVD's, streaming and product sales. The bigger the star, the higher the percentage. I don't see it as greed either. If they don't perform, they don't get paid. Unlike the greed of Corporate America CEO/Boards that pays themselves a huge bonus when they lose money. 

"In March 2009, American International Group disclosed that it would pay more than $100 million in bonuses to executives in its financial division. The insurance corporation had received more than $170 billion in a taxpayer bailout at the end of 2008 to prevent a broader panic on Wall Street, after selling financial instruments tied to questionable mortgage-backed securities around the world."

[doctoro]

Folks let’s all let out a collective sigh of relief. 
The Japan Embassy has just sent out a letter stating Taylor will be able to make it from Japan after her show to Las Vegas to watch her Travis play in the big game.  
Taylor and Travis have also been voted Prom King and Queen. 
 

[NJBigFish22]

12 hours ago, dashanks said:

No disagreement here.  But just as an illustration, in 2021 Dwayne Johnson made $270,000,000.   If we say the average teacher's salary was $70,000, that would mean that the Rock made as much money as 3,857 teachers combined.  WTF?   Again, I don't begrudge him one nickel of it.  It's just a sad commentary on what we see as valuable in this country.  

Good for the Rock and others for making the money they do.  The thing that bothers me was only emphasized by something I saw this week.  Alyssa Milano and her $10+ million net worth takes to social media to ask people to contribute to her son’s baseball team so they can go to Cooperstown.  This is the crap that bothers me.  Have some self awareness.  

[touch]

2 hours ago, doctoro said:

Folks let’s all let out a collective sigh of relief. 
The Japan Embassy has just sent out a letter stating Taylor will be able to make it from Japan after her show to Las Vegas to watch her Travis play in the big game.  
Taylor and Travis have also been voted Prom King and Queen. 
 

 

 

Hey doc, I think Taylor is going to need at least a gram when she finally gets to Allegiant Stadium no?  ❄️  😆

[touch]

2 hours ago, doctoro said:

Folks let’s all let out a collective sigh of relief. 
The Japan Embassy has just sent out a letter stating Taylor will be able to make it from Japan after her show to Las Vegas to watch her Travis play in the big game.  
Taylor and Travis have also been voted Prom King and Queen. 
 

 

 

Pay attention doc. This one's got class. This ain't some "our days" trashy Madonna.  😅

 

I enjoyed that post sir. 

[dashanks]

14 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... The Big Stars get a percentage of the box office, DVD's, streaming and product sales. The bigger the star, the higher the percentage. I don't see it as greed either. If they don't perform, they don't get paid. Unlike the greed of Corporate America CEO/Boards that pays themselves a huge bonus when they lose money. 

"In March 2009, American International Group disclosed that it would pay more than $100 million in bonuses to executives in its financial division. The insurance corporation had received more than $170 billion in a taxpayer bailout at the end of 2008 to prevent a broader panic on Wall Street, after selling financial instruments tied to questionable mortgage-backed securities around the world."

Was never a big fan of that bailout situation.  Always thought it was kind of like bailing out Bernie Madoff after one of his Pozi schemes fell through on him.

[Petethreeput]

I think I have shared my less than ideal thoughts on the current financial landscape, but I will try to explain my logic.

 

In the '60's long term capital gains on securities was 60 months.  In the 80's CEOs started to take stock options in lieu of income to save on taxes.  I think the guy from Coca Cola was the first to figure this out.  Then in the early 2000's LTCG was moved to 12 months to create a more liquid market.  And it did that, but it also changed the financial landscape, the unintended consequences of what seems like a good idea.

 

Now, because of that liquidity, in the 60's the average CEO was employed for 14 years, today it is 6 years.  In the 60's the average CEO made 44X the average worker, today it is 150X.  In today's world these CEOs live and die on the quarterly reports, and let's face it, a company cannot grow every quarter, but the shareholders don't want to hear that.  Then once they "fail" in a quarter and get fired they want to make sure they are set up (and to stick it to the company) resulting in these obscene golden parachutes.  Because generally once they are fired they are old news and unemployable.

 

So there you have it.  The concentration of wealth, and obscene compensation packages is due to LTCG timelines changing.  At least this is how it works in my tiny mind.  

[chisag]

13 hours ago, NJBigFish22 said:

 Have some self awareness.

 

 

... If actors had any self awareness most wouldn't be actors. 😇 It's like I told my sons 2nd grade class on Career Day when I read The Prince and the Pauper using all their voices and one boy said "I wanna be an actor when I grow up!" and I replied "Sorry kid, but you can't do both". 

Edited February 5, 2024 by chisag

[doctoro]

3 hours ago, Petethreeput said:

I think I have shared my less than ideal thoughts on the current financial landscape, but I will try to explain my logic.

 

In the '60's long term capital gains on securities was 60 months.  In the 80's CEOs started to take stock options in lieu of income to save on taxes.  I think the guy from Coca Cola was the first to figure this out.  Then in the early 2000's LTCG was moved to 12 months to create a more liquid market.  And it did that, but it also changed the financial landscape, the unintended consequences of what seems like a good idea.

 

Now, because of that liquidity, in the 60's the average CEO was employed for 14 years, today it is 6 years.  In the 60's the average CEO made 44X the average worker, today it is 150X.  In today's world these CEOs live and die on the quarterly reports, and let's face it, a company cannot grow every quarter, but the shareholders don't want to hear that.  Then once they "fail" in a quarter and get fired they want to make sure they are set up (and to stick it to the company) resulting in these obscene golden parachutes.  Because generally once they are fired they are old news and unemployable.

 

So there you have it.  The concentration of wealth, and obscene compensation packages is due to LTCG timelines changing.  At least this is how it works in my tiny mind.  

It amazes me how much wealth has accumulated at the top of the corporate ladder. At some point, the model is going to break.  Japanese CEOs put the health of their companies at the forefront, most CEOs don't get paid nearly what American CEOs are paid.  Greed runs deep in this country.

[Petethreeput]

41 minutes ago, doctoro said:

It amazes me how much wealth has accumulated at the top of the corporate ladder. At some point, the model is going to break.  Japanese CEOs put the health of their companies at the forefront, most CEOs don't get paid nearly what American CEOs are paid.  Greed runs deep in this country.

See, we haven't always been this way, but with the shorter life expectancy of the top brass they feel like they have to get it all up front.  There is no time to grow into the job like there used to be.  These Japanese firms are similar to how we used to do it.  I truly believe none of these CEOs going into it thinking how much they are going to make, but rather how they can make the business grow, but really only the founders consistently have the legs to see through downturns (of course there are exceptions, but..)

 

As Buffett said, his tax rate is less than his secretary's.  The statistics are staggering how it has all gone uphill over the past 40 years.  Something has to give, and when it does, I hope everything doesn't break.

[dashanks]

7 hours ago, Petethreeput said:

I think I have shared my less than ideal thoughts on the current financial landscape, but I will try to explain my logic.

 

In the '60's long term capital gains on securities was 60 months.  In the 80's CEOs started to take stock options in lieu of income to save on taxes.  I think the guy from Coca Cola was the first to figure this out.  Then in the early 2000's LTCG was moved to 12 months to create a more liquid market.  And it did that, but it also changed the financial landscape, the unintended consequences of what seems like a good idea.

 

Now, because of that liquidity, in the 60's the average CEO was employed for 14 years, today it is 6 years.  In the 60's the average CEO made 44X the average worker, today it is 150X.  In today's world these CEOs live and die on the quarterly reports, and let's face it, a company cannot grow every quarter, but the shareholders don't want to hear that.  Then once they "fail" in a quarter and get fired they want to make sure they are set up (and to stick it to the company) resulting in these obscene golden parachutes.  Because generally once they are fired they are old news and unemployable.

 

So there you have it.  The concentration of wealth, and obscene compensation packages is due to LTCG timelines changing.  At least this is how it works in my tiny mind.  

That seems like pretty heavy thinking for a "tiny mind."  Of course, I understand finance about as well as I understand quantum physics so...

[Petethreeput]

9 hours ago, dashanks said:

Was never a big fan of that bailout situation.  Always thought it was kind of like bailing out Bernie Madoff after one of his Pozi schemes fell through on him.

Yes and no.  These insurance companies get saved not bc of their P&C, but for their life insurance division.

 

A lot of folks have been paying in thousands per year for whole life and they have been promised they can take loans off the accrued capital to either live more comfortably or they can use it for assisted living.  The sale is on the tax free portion at the beginning.  There was a book called “The Power of Zero” that talks about annuities, whole life, and some other tax shelters.

 

The truth is these are awful investments for most people, but in some very limited spaces they have their place.  But if their life division went under millions of Americans would have been essentially put into poverty in retirement.

Edited February 6, 2024 by Petethreeput

[chisag]

11 hours ago, Petethreeput said:

, in the 60's the average CEO was employed for 14 years, today it is 6 years.  In the 60's the average CEO made 44X the average worker, today it is 150X. 

 

 

...  I had always heard 20-1. From Money Watch:


"A Ford representative told CBS MoneyWatch that the UAW's claims are misleading, noting that since 2019 CEO Jim Farley's total compensation has risen 21%, not 40%, while his annual salary over that period is down 6%. Farley earned $21 million in total compensation last year, the Detroit News reported, which is 281 times more than typical workers at the company, according to Ford filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares made $24.8 million in 2022, according to the Detroit Free Press, roughly 365 times more than the average worker at Stellantis, SEC filings show. GM CEO Mary Barra earned nearly $29 million in 2022 pay, Automotive News reported, which is 362 times more than the typical GM worker.

While those ratios may seem staggering, they're not uncommon, according to Michael Dambra, an accounting and law professor at University at Buffalo. "It's right in line with what's been happening in the past three or four years," Dambra told CBS News.  

Triple-digit pay gaps between a CEOs and workers are also not unique to the auto industry, Dambra and other experts say. 

Back in the '60s and '70s, company executives earned "somewhere between 20 and 30 times" regular employees, but "that's massively increased, particularly in the 2000s," said Dambra."

 

[touch]

[Petethreeput]

12 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

...  I had always heard 20-1. From Money Watch:


"A Ford representative told CBS MoneyWatch that the UAW's claims are misleading, noting that since 2019 CEO Jim Farley's total compensation has risen 21%, not 40%, while his annual salary over that period is down 6%. Farley earned $21 million in total compensation last year, the Detroit News reported, which is 281 times more than typical workers at the company, according to Ford filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares made $24.8 million in 2022, according to the Detroit Free Press, roughly 365 times more than the average worker at Stellantis, SEC filings show. GM CEO Mary Barra earned nearly $29 million in 2022 pay, Automotive News reported, which is 362 times more than the typical GM worker.

While those ratios may seem staggering, they're not uncommon, according to Michael Dambra, an accounting and law professor at University at Buffalo. "It's right in line with what's been happening in the past three or four years," Dambra told CBS News.  

Triple-digit pay gaps between a CEOs and workers are also not unique to the auto industry, Dambra and other experts say. 

Back in the '60s and '70s, company executives earned "somewhere between 20 and 30 times" regular employees, but "that's massively increased, particularly in the 2000s," said Dambra."

 

I have to admit, my numbers are pulled from memory so they may not be spot on, but certainly close enough to paint the picture.  I think it's telling when the company reports vs the actual amount.  The stock certs are registered as the buy number, not the trade number, nor is that amount calculated to include growth and/or dividends.  On top of diluting the stock for the shareholders, these executives are also able to buy them on options at a fraction of the cost.

 

I don't follow this stuff too much anymore because in so many ways it is depressing.  As others have said, in no way do I besmirch a person for attaining and accruing wealth.  If you are good at something and it is able to monetized, I support the efforts 100%.  I am a dyed in the wool capitalist.  What I am not though is this.  Once you make it, it shouldn't be easier to continue on the path than for others.  And by that I am thinking capital gains, tax dodges, etc., these codes (and this isn't political BTW, this is societal) are clearly written to benefit these folks who really don't need it anymore.

 

 

[chisag]

1 hour ago, Petethreeput said:

I don't follow this stuff too much anymore because in so many ways it is depressing.  As others have said, in no way do I besmirch a person for attaining and accruing wealth.  If you are good at something and it is able to monetized, I support the efforts 100%.  I am a dyed in the wool capitalist.  What I am not though is this.  Once you make it, it shouldn't be easier to continue on the path than for others.  And by that I am thinking capital gains, tax dodges, etc., these codes (and this isn't political BTW, this is societal) are clearly written to benefit these folks who really don't need it anymore.

 

 

... Murica and all. I am not a fan of capitalism when it rewards greed. But like Democracy I admit it's the best we got. I just think there is something inherently wrong with manipulating money just to make more money, without actually working for a living. One of the reasons I appreciate Mrgreens posts of doing things with his hands and providing a service people actually need. Then there is the idea of doing things for the betterment of society vs doing things for your own betterment. The idea of closing down a plant and putting 1k hard working folks out of business because even though it is running at a small profit, they can make much more by selling and/or taking a write off for the stockholders is just pure evil to me. 

[Petethreeput]

OK, I think Jim Cramer is in many respects bigger on bark than bite, but I just watched a little blurb from Mad Money this morning.  Interesting take on the overall economy and the difference in consumer, not to mention all the vagaries of the larger economy.

 

He notes McDonald's is dropping because there is a large cadre of the country who can no longer purchase McD.  The average income for Dollar Tree is $125,000.  These are both quotes from the CEOs on earnings calls.  But, just as there are these individuals, roughly 60% of the population, there are also millions of folks who will shell out $35 for the new TayTay album on vinyl.

 

Anyway, the bifurcation of the American consumer is getting more and more stark, and this is why the Fed is flummoxed about inflation.  If on the one hand you have folks spending $35 on a record it will be difficult to reel in prices with interest rates.  On the other hand, wages haven't kept up with the increases in the staples.  And again, it isn't necessarily greed or politics making this a reality, it is the fact that McD has to increase prices to keep margins for it's investors so leadership can keep their jobs.

 

Years ago I was a reader.  Now?  Not so much.  But I do remember when I was teaching and realizing 60% of the kids I met were statistically likely to fall into the working poor category how I might be able to illustrate the pitfalls and gain an appreciation for it.  David Shipler's "Working Poor; Invisible in America" and Barbara Ehrenreich "Nickel and Dimed" are two good reads I remember.  She is a reporter and she decided to live on a poverty for a month and gives a strong first hand account, and I was struck how often she felt fortunate it was a for a book and not a lifestyle.

[nsxguy]

6 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

He notes McDonald's is dropping because there is a large cadre of the country who can no longer purchase McD.  The average income for Dollar Tree is $125,000.

 

"afford" McD ?

 

Dollar Tree customer ?

[Petethreeput]

8 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

"afford" McD ?

 

Dollar Tree customer ?

Don't shoot the messenger!  The CEO of McD's said the sales were down and the logical "competition" was eating at home.  The CEO of Dollar Tree said this was the average wage for shoppers (sorry I missed the definer of customer, you are correct).  Downright crazy.

 

Like I said, I don't love Cramer, but I thought it was an interesting assessment and certainly nothing I had heard before.  I can't speak to the veracity of his comments, but I do like to hear/read different ideas and then I like to share them here because I think of this as a spot where while we are all different, it doesn't feel like a place closed to different ideas.

Edited February 6, 2024 by Petethreeput

[Petethreeput]

@nsxguy I should add, which is why I even mentioned Cramer, I am a heavy consumer of written news.  For the past few years the reports seem to all indicate, and Larry Kudlow acknowledged, the economists have been wrong about the economy.  But no one I have read has ever really been able to explain (at least in my eyes) what could possibly be the driver of these miscalculations.  I used to watch Cramer years and years ago, and sort of felt like he was cartooning himself to keep eyeballs on him, so I thought this was a refreshing reminder that he is/was/could be very smart and a free thinker.

[nsxguy]

30 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

Don't shoot the messenger!  The CEO of McD's said the sales were down and the logical "competition" was eating at home.  The CEO of Dollar Tree said this was the average wage for shoppers (sorry I missed the definer of customer, you are correct).

 

Not shooting anybody, just seeking clarification.

 

I'd agree with the McD CEO, simply because everyone has to eat somewhere. Thins too expensive for McD, eat at home - makes perfect sense.

 

But there have ALWAYS been tiers of restaurants - and fast food is the lowest of them; other than maybe the hot dog carts in Manhattan (assuming they're still there).

 

So if the bottom rung is getting too expensive for (some of) the lesser incomes among us, McD will have to find a way - they have for some 65 years or so. And when the deli becomes too expensive for the next higher level, they will be coming to McDs.

 

As for the "dollar" stores, I can't find any way to believe the average income of their customers is $125,000. The dollar store is the least expensive place to buy pretty much ANYTHING. They ought to be called the "Close-out" stores.

 

 

[chisag]

54 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

On the other hand, wages haven't kept up with the increases in the staples.  And again, it isn't necessarily greed or politics making this a reality, it is the fact that McD has to increase prices to keep margins for it's investors so leadership can keep their jobs.

 

 

 

... Do they though?  If a CEO is making 20 times that of the average worker and the idea is providing food (kinda food) for the working class as well as employment for young and old, you don't need much profit. Such was the America I grew up in the 50's and 60's. By the 80's it was a different America and greed galloped unbridled. The focus shifted to profits for stockholders and the CEO/Board members. McDonalds CEO makes 21.5 million and goodness knows what the Board makes on top of that. If he had a salary of 1.5 million that would be 20 million going back into the restaurants. Reduce prices by 50 cents and that's 40 million meals that don't need a price increase. I know, I have a hippie economic view. 😜

... I had a car loan with my local bank when I was in high school and college. Always made my payments on time in high school but struggled to always make my payment by the due date in college. Talked to my banker about it and he completely understood. He gave me a 2 week grace period as long as I let him know my payment would be late and once allowed me to skip a month when I was between part time jobs. Never any charges or fees. If I tried that at my bank I would be laughed out of the office in 2024.