Monthly Archives: April 2022

The most damning testimonial about the distorted adherence to the NFLs Rooney Rule went unnoticed for nearly 18 months.

Lost in the abyss of COVID-related football coverage nestled in the middle of a Steelers Realm podcast in October of 2020 former NFL head coach Mike Mularkey took a familiar allegation about the Rooney Rule and told a story about it from a completely unfamiliar vantage. He provided the viewpoint of the guy who actually got the top job in 2016, and the regret that ensued because he believed the process was a lie.

Thats what Mularkey tried to tell everyone in 2020. That the spirit of the Rooney Rule was abused. That he had firsthand knowledge of it. And that it was a top-down problem of complicity, starting with Tennessee Titans ownership and extending to general manager Jon Robinson.

Somehow, we missed this bomb. Now the Brian Flores lawsuit against the NFL alleging racial discrimination in hiring practices has rediscovered it. It's a damning turn for the NFL, who now has to contend with a former head coach who landed his top job in 2016, then framed it as a fake hiring process that considered minority coaching candidates simply to check a box.

The suggestion of this kind of Rooney Rule distortion isnt new. But a former head coach like Mularkey expressing contrition for being a silent accomplice to it certainly is. That should have the NFL worried. Not only because Flores isnt alone anymore in his class-action lawsuit (Steve Wilks and Ray Horton have joined as plaintiffs) but also because the league never could have imagined dealing with this Mularkey revelation. Not once in Rooney Rule history has a head coach said he got a job without the other candidates getting a fair shake. Enter Mularkey in 2020, answering a remarkably broad question in a specific and personal way.

Mike Mularkey called the Titans' 2016 coaching search, which ended with him getting the job, a "fake hiring process." (Photo by Wesley Hitt/Getty Images)

Here's how the query went:

Would there be anything during your coaching career that you might have done differently or changed?

Story continues

Thats a good question, Mularkey said. Ill tell you guys this: Ive always prided myself on doing the right thing in this business and I cant say thats true about everybody in this business. Its a very cutthroat business and a lot of guys will tell you that. But I allowed myself at one point when I was in Tennessee to get caught up in something I regret. I still regret it. But the ownership there, Amy Adams-Strunk and her family, came in and told me I was going to be the head coach in 2016, before they went through the Rooney Rule. And so, I sat there knowing I was the head coach in 16 as they went through this fake hiring process knowing a lot of the coaches that they were interviewing, knowing how much they prepared to go through those interviews, knowing that everything they could do and they had no chance of getting that job. Actually, the GM, Jon Robinson, he was in on the interview with me. He had no idea why he was interviewing me that I had the job already.

Mularkey went on:

I regret [it], because I pride myself in my kids first, to do the right thing. I always said that to the players. And here I am, the head guy, not doing it. Ive regretted that since then. It was the wrong thing to do. Im sorry I did that. But it was not the way to go about it. I should have interviewed like everybody else and got hired because of the interview, not early on. Thats probably my biggest regret.

This isnt the kind of thing a coach typically says on a podcast. Its the kind of answer offered in a sealed deposition that takes place under oath. That probably tells you a little about how long Mularkey must have been carrying this around.

Making that kind of allegation is no small thing, particularly when youre basically implicating yourself as being a passive participant.

For Flores legal camp, thats the stuff of dreams. Maybe its admissible in court or maybe its not, but it certainly stands to reason that if Mularkey was willing to state it once as a podcast guest, hed be willing to do it a second time as a contrite witness in a courtroom. And even if thats not the case, the public perception of the moment is inescapable. Its proof of concept that some NFL hires are already locked up before the process even begins. And that the Rooney Rule became a tool used for optics and shielding.

NFL teams had long been suspected of staging sham interviews with minority candidates to satisfy the rule, essentially checking off a box that stood in the way of hiring a white head coach. Never had it been aired out in a way that illustrated the theory from each side of that checked box completing a three-dimensional perspective between minority candidates who suspected they were being used, to white counterparts who might have suspected (or even known) the job was theirs from the start.

Mularkey filled in a long-missing piece of that picture. It's a fact that resulted in the Titans effectively calling him a liar Thursday.

Our 2016 head coach search was a thoughtful and competitive process fully in keeping with NFL guidelines and our own organizational values, the Titans said in a statement. We conducted detailed, in-person interviews with four talented individuals, two of whom were diverse candidates. No decision was made, and no decision was communicated, prior to the completion of all interviews. While we are proud of Our Commitment to Diversity, we are dedicated to continued growth as an organization to foster diversity and inclusion in our workplace and community.

Its worth noting that Mularkey made his statement to "Steelers Realm" nearly 16 months before Flores' lawsuit emerged. He rolled out arguably the most massive Rooney Rule grenade to date at a time when it would arguably reflect on only himself. And he did it in a way that made him a part of the problem, while answering a question that wasnt specific to how NFL teams run their hiring processes.

All of which seems pretty weird. People dont just fall on a sword for no reason, especially in the NFL and most especially when nobody seems to know that youve been complicit in something. Mularkey did exactly that. With zero tangible benefit to himself.

Thats a statement unto itself. And its one the NFL is going to have to take seriously.

Read more here:

What Mike Mularkey said about Titans and Rooney Rule should worry NFL - Yahoo Sports

Businesses all over the world are still feeling the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Many are shuttered, fortunes were lost and lives changed forever.

The pandemic was in a way, however, the start of a new, even more successful era for the UFC.

The UFC was the first major sports league in the U.S. to return to action after a shutdown caused by the pandemic. And it was the first to welcome full-capacity fans on April 24, 2021, at UFC 261, which was held in Florida at Jacksonvilles VyStar Veterans Memorial Arena.

The show was a sellout, with the crowd of 15,269 paying $3.3 million at the gate. Tickets sold out within minutes of going on sale.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and UFC president Dana White each received fierce criticism for holding an event in the middle of the pandemic with no fan restrictions. Masks or negative COVID tests werent required.

DeSantis spoke to the crowd gathered for the pre-fight news conference on April 22, 2021, and boasted about Floridas defense of freedom:

Welcome to Florida. You guys arent the only ones looking to come to this oasis of freedom. This is going to be the first full-throttle sporting event since COVID hit, indoor, anywhere in the United States. I think its fitting. We wanted to be safe, but theres a lot of stuff that comes at you from media, from social media, all this stuff. Some people dont like to handle that. Dana White goes right into the teeth of that.

White has made a lot of good decisions en route to building the UFC into a global powerhouse, but insisting upon returning even as the pandemic went on has turned out to be arguably his shrewdest.

The UFC returns to Jacksonville on Saturday with a stacked card for UFC 273. Unsurprisingly, the event is sold out.

Since the UFCs return, Saturdays event will be the 14th in which full capacity was permitted. All 14 of those, 12 of them pay-per-views, have sold out. Six times, the UFC set a record for highest-grossing gate for the arena, including at UFC 261, UFC 262 and UFC 263, the first three events upon return.

Story continues

The fourth, UFC 264, set a T-Mobile attendance record of 20,062, though the $15.8 million gate was not a record. It was, though, among the UFCs largest gates in its history.

Since the pandemic began, the UFC has sold out all 14 of its full-capacity events. (Infographic by Atay Bulut/Yahoo Sports)

UFC 267 is not included in the sellout streak because the pandemic in Abu Dhabi prevented a full-capacity arena.

Believe me, this business is on fire, White told Yahoo Sports recently, a comment hes made repeatedly throughout the last year.

The seeds of the growth sprouted during the early days of the pandemic, when the UFC held events with no fans at its Apex facility on its campus in Las Vegas.

There wasnt the usual amount of sports on TV then and the UFC in large part had the space to itself. With viewers hungry for content, many gravitated to the UFC.

What happened was, we had pay-per-views doing three, four times maybe what wed normally expect, White said. There was one where I think we projected around 250,000 and it came out just under a million, like 960,000. There was nothing else for people to watch, so they took a look at the UFC and we got a lot of new fans.

Hunter Campbell, the UFCs chief business officer, said the success borne during the empty-arena days has sustained. Nearly every metric the UFC measures itself by has continued well above pre-pandemic levels: ticket sales, gate receipts, pay-per-view sales and sponsorship sales among them.

The thirst for live content was real.

Everything has gone crazy, Campbell said. And its sustained. I think to understand the reason you have to look at two things which happened. First, during the pandemic, remember it was us, table tennis and Korean baseball [on TV]. People were craving live events and so we delivered content to them.

And a lot of those people who tuned in werent hard-core UFC fans. It takes a while to understand [MMA]. Its not instant usually that you can get your head around it, but when you do, its such a superior product. And once you get into the world of UFC, its hard to leave it.

UFC president Dana White says even better days are ahead for the company. (Photo by Mike Roach/Zuffa LLC)

The UFC has been a boon for its television partner, ESPN. The UFC began drawing massive numbers at a time when the number of households ESPN reached had dropped significantly and its viewership levels were down.

The UFC was one of the keys in helping Disney, ESPNs parent, build its ESPN+ streaming service into a viable entity.

A bantamweight title fight between Henry Cejudo and T.J. Dillashaw headlined a UFC Fight Night card on Jan. 19, 2019, before the pandemic began. It was a night, though, that showed the power of the UFC to ESPN.

The preliminaries aired on ESPN and ESPN Deportes and drew 2.08 million viewers, the most-viewed UFC telecast on cable in three years. The signups for the new ESPN+ were brisk, ESPN president Jimmy Pitaro noted in a memo to his staff the day after the event.

The 13 fights on UFC Fight Night on ESPN+ led to 568,000 new subscribers for ESPN+ on Friday and Saturday combined, with more than 525,000 on Saturday alone, Pitaro wrote. We served a wide array of sports fans, with nearly 5.1 million unique users consuming MMA-related digital content across ESPN digital platforms over the Saturday and Sunday period. And the 1.4 overnight rating on ESPN was the largest for a UFC prelims fight card on cable since 2013!

At the end of 2021, ESPN+ had more than 17 million subscribers. Former Disney CEO Bob Iger credited the UFC on a Disney earnings call with helping greatly to boost ESPN+ subscribers.

Thats led in part to the UFCs success since returning from the empty-arena days. The UFC set a record for the largest Fight Night gate on March 19 at the O2 in London. A UFC Fight Night is a non-pay-per-view event. It broke that record the following week on March 26 at Columbus, Ohios Nationwide Arena.

We did $2.8 million gates for a Jon Jones [light heavyweight title] fight before the pandemic, and now were doing more than $3 million for a Fight Night, White said. Its f***ing crazy.

White said UFCs research has determined the promotion has 650 million fans worldwide, so he said the growth opportunities are nearly infinite.

He expects a massive pay-per-view number Saturday despite the card being headlined by a featherweight title fight. The featherweight division historically isnt a huge draw as the main event.

Champion Alexander Volkanovski puts his belt on the line against The Korean Zombie, Chan Sung Jung. In the co-main, bantamweight champion Aljamain Sterling fights interim champion Petr Yan of Russia.

In the other fight getting buzz, Brazilian welterweight Gilbert Burns meets Russian Khamzat Chimaev.

Im in Jacksonville, Florida, with an Australian against a Korean in my main event and were sold out, its breaking records and the pay-per-view is trending off the charts, White said. Were going to have one of the biggest [PPV sales] in the history of the featherweight division. Weve got an American against a Russian in the co-main and in the other fight, Ive got a Russian Muslim against a Brazilian.

Were doing all of this in Jacksonville f***ing Florida. Its just beyond incredible what has happened to this business.

Despite that success, White believes better days are ahead. He believes that just like ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox dominated network television for several generations, there soon will be several worldwide streaming services which will do the same.

How many people are there on Earth? Seven billion? Eight billion? White asked. Its a lot of people. And were at 650 million people, so consider how many people we havent touched yet. Now, were near the day Ive long dreamed of, when we have big streamers who become global. I dont know who it is, whether its going to be Disney, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon or whoever, but some of them are going to go global and be dominant like the networks were here.

When that day comes, Im going to be the happiest guy in the world because the ceiling on this thing is so crazy, its difficult to wrap your head around what it might become.

See the original post here:

Pandemic helped UFC find another level of success: 'This business is on fire' - Yahoo Sports

Even when his Los Angeles Lakers are out of the playoffs, LeBron James is still going to find ways to draw attention.

This time, in a clip from his "The Shop" HBO show posted the same day as the Lakers' elimination at the hands of the Phoenix Suns, James dropped one of his not-so-subtle hints about whom he would like to play with in the future. First on his list was his son Bronny (no surprise there).

Next up was a player by the name of Stephen Curry, and you can imagine what that did to a few people's imaginations. He also named Luka Doncic as the other active player he would like to play with, as well as Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant among former players.

James' explanation:

In todays game? S***, theres some motherf***ers in todays game, but Steph Curry. Steph Curry is the one that I would want to play with, for sure, in todays game. ...Right now its Steph.

I love everything about that guy. Lethal. When he gets out of his car youd better guard him right from the moment he pulls up to the arena. As soon as he gets out of his car, you better guard his ass. You might want to guard him when he gets out of bed. I swear to God.

James and Curry have faced off from opposing NBA mountaintops over the past decade, but have only ever played with each other in All-Star Games. In the three All-Star Games James has been a captain with Curry available, the Lakers star hasn't let the sharpshooter slip past the third pick, drafting him twice.

It didn't take long for those comments to get back to Curry, who was played James' comments during an appearance on San Francisco's 95.7 The Game.

Curry's reaction:

"He got his wish. He was the captain, he picked me the last two All-Star Games. I don't know if that suffices, but I'm good right now.

"Whenever you get the interest or curiosity of what it would be like to play with arguably an MVP-caliber dude like he is, greatest of all time, cool. That's amazing. We all can live in that fantasy world."

Story continues

If you're wondering just how feasible this might be, consider that Curry signed a supermax deal last August that will tie him to Golden State through 2026. Considering how much he means to the Warriors franchise, he almost certainly isn't going anywhere.

The more intriguing possibility is James coming to Curry, but even that feels like a longshot considering what it would take the Warriors franchise to fit James on the court, not to mention Curry's nonplussed reaction. Adding James to the team's historically expensive balance sheet alone would require some major maneuvering, but we've seen the Warriors do something similar before.

Regardless of his eventual destination, James is a free agent after next season and his tenure in Los Angeles has never been more turbulent, so an exit is possible.

LeBron James and Stephen Curry would be quite a combination. (Cary Edmondson-USA TODAY Sports)

More here:

Stephen Curry laughs off LeBron James wanting to play with him: 'I'm good right now' - Yahoo Sports

Editor's note: This story was originally published in 2021 and has been updated to reflect the 2021-22 women's college basketball season heading into the 2022 WNBA draft.

Some of the most well-known names in women's college basketball will not be drafted April 11 when the 2022 WNBA draft is held.

In 2021, Paige Bueckers built a never-before-seen freshman season for powerhouse Connecticut, a program that itself has experienced a fair share of unprecedented marks. She led the Huskies to the brink of reaching the title game and became the first freshman to win a score of awards, namely the John R. Wooden Award for college basketball's most outstanding player.

If she were a male player, she could have chosen to be a one-and-done as the likely No. 1 pick in the draft. Her childhood best friend, Gonzaga freshman Jalen Suggs, had that option and was selected fifth overall by the Orlando Magic in the 2021 NBA draft.

Two kids from the same neighborhood, same background, same everything go to school 3,000 miles apart. Their paths are 3,000 miles different, UConn coach Geno Auriemma said during the 2021 NCAA women's tournament. One will have the opportunity to be 1-2-3 pick in the NBA draft and make millions and millions of dollars. The other will be back at UConn.

The WNBA operates with different eligibility rules than the NBA. Those rules are increasingly a topic of discussion that came to the forefront with Bueckers, then again in 2022 with the rise of national player of the year and NCAA champion Aliyah Boston, and it's not as clear of a call to change the rules as it is with the NBA.

Most college players aren't eligible for the WNBA draft until they've finished four years of college. But there are some exceptions in the collective bargaining agreement for juniors such as Texas' Charli Collier, who was selected No. 1 in the 2021 WNBA draft.

Story continues

A player who turns 22 in the calendar year of the draft can renounce their NCAA eligibility and enter. Sabrina Ionescu could have declared as a junior in the April 2019 draft, for example, because she turned 22 on Dec. 6 later that year.

A player who graduated from a four-year school prior to the draft or within three months after the draft can declare. Many women's players graduate within three years and begin graduate programs to stay for a fourth.

International players who do not play collegiate ball in the U.S. are eligible if they turn 20 during the calendar year of the draft. The Seattle Storm drafted Ezi Magbegor in 2019 when the Australian center was 19.

The draft rules have been around since the league was founded in 1997 and the current CBA runs through 2027, so they are here for a while. Bueckers is staying in school until at least 2023 when she'll turn 22 in October. Boston won't turn 22 until December 2023.

UConn's Paige Bueckers drives to the basket against South Carolina's Aliyah Boston during the NCAA women's championship gamw on April 3, 2022 at Target Center in Minneapolis. Neither player will be selected in the 2022 WNBA draft because of eligibility requires for the pro league. (C. Morgan Engel/NCAA Photos via Getty Images)

There was a lot to pack into the CBA after players opted out following the 2018 season. The new deal includes higher salaries, better benefits and accommodations more fitting of professional athletes.

Sue Bird, four-time Seattle Storm champion and WNBA Players Association vice president, said the union briefly discussed it during CBA negotiations in 2019, but didn't revisit it with so much else on the table.

It wasnt the priority in the moment, Bird said, via the Associated Press. I think whats interesting in this conversation is, I think players should have a choice, always. Players should always have a choice.

Her longtime teammate, foe and friend, Phoenix Mercury star Diana Taurasi, agreed.

I think the next step is to have the choice, Taurasi said, via AP. Will kids do it? Probably not. We should have that option. If youre the best at your profession, you should be able to get better.

Bueckers and fellow freshman phenom Caitlin Clark at Iowa were both asked about it last year and demurred, noting the choice isn't available to them so there's no purpose in thinking about it. Along with Boston, they are part of an incredible 2024 class that includes Aaliyah Edwards (UConn), Cameron Brink (Stanford) and Hailey Van Lith (Louisville).

There are very few players who opt to leave college early as an eligible junior. The benefits, and mainly the money, are not there the way they are in the NBA.

In the previous CBA, rookies like four-time UConn champion Breanna Stewart made around $40,000 a year on a rookie contract. WNBA rookies drafted first through fourth in 2021 will receive $70,040 in base salary. That's life-changing money for a lot of people, but it pales in comparison to $8 million a No. 1 NBA draft pick will make.

WNBA players have historically complemented their salaries with potentially more lucrative overseas contracts and marketing deals. But that money is rare to start out for rookies.

For some, it's worth it. Notre Dame star Jewell Loyd (Seattle Storm) and Minnesota's Amanda Zahui B (Los Angeles Sparks) entered the 2015 draft early. In 2016, Aerial Powers (Minnesota Lynx) left Michigan State as a junior and UConn's Morgan Tuck left with a year of eligibility remaining after taking a redshirt as a sophomore.

"Trends take more than a year or two to really develop," Lisa Borders said as WNBA president in 2016. "Let's revisit this again a few years down the road and then see where we stand."

South Carolina redshirt juniors Allisha Gray and Kaela Davis followed in 2017. Diamond DeShields left Tennessee as a junior to play overseas in Turkey ahead of the 2018 draft that also included early entrant Azura Stevens of UConn. Jackie Young left Notre Dame and was the Las Vegas Aces' No. 1 overall pick in 2019. And in 2020, Oregon's Satou Sabally, UConn's Megan Walker and Texas A&M's Chennedy Carter were first-round picks as eligible juniors.

It's a few years later, a trend is there and it's time to revisit it.

The impact of allowing players to declare early is deeper than only a talented player like Bueckers or Boston. Keeping top-notch talent in college year after year grows the collegiate game, and in women's basketball, it still has an outsized impact on women's basketball at large.

Thats what helped our game grow, the fact these kids stay in school a little longer, Auriemma said. Build a brand for themselves, build a brand for the university.

Fans will be tuning in for another college season to watch Boston, Bueckers and other talent that showed out in the tournament. It allows players times to build their own brands and explore name, image and likeness deals. Ionescu has done that with her on-court talents and off-court degree.

But there are also not enough spots for the amount of talent now in the women's game.

"I like the requirements right now selfishly because I think it grows women's basketball," former UConn star and ESPN analyst Rebecca Lobo said in 2021. "We saw the ratings [in the 2020-21 season] in women's college basketball and the tournament and the Final Four. These women are on a huge stage on that platform, and I'd like to see them continue to be on that stage until they're completely ready for the WNBA."

The unfortunate reality is there are not a lot of places for them to go if they chose to leave early. Natasha Cloud, Diamond DeShields, Lexie Brown and Erica Wheeler commented last year on a Highlight Her graphic, noting that there are only 12 spots on each of 12 teams. But that 144 roster number isn't accurate, either. Because of the higher salaries and team salary caps, analysts and WNBA general managers estimate it might be lower.

Rosters right now are bulging and the jump from collegiate ball to the professional level is a big one. Second- and third-round draft picks are already a long shot to make rosters and some first-round picks might not make it either.

The league needs expansion first for the growing talent coming up into the professional ranks. We'd all love to see Bueckers or Boston in the WNBA sooner than later. But without more teams, it doesn't make sense for the game if they were to jump now. That might change by the time the CBA is set to expire, and their collegiate feats might force a change for generational talents. For now, there are other changes to accomplish first.

More here:

Why Paige Bueckers and Aliyah Boston won't be drafted until the 2023 WNBA draft - Yahoo Sports

For beginners, it can seem like a good idea (and an exciting prospect) to buy a company that tells a good story to investors, even if it completely lacks a track record of revenue and profit. But as Warren Buffett has mused, 'If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.' When they buy such story stocks, investors are all too often the patsy.

In contrast to all that, I prefer to spend time on companies like Xcel Energy (NASDAQ:XEL), which has not only revenues, but also profits. Even if the shares are fully valued today, most capitalists would recognize its profits as the demonstration of steady value generation. Conversely, a loss-making company is yet to prove itself with profit, and eventually the sweet milk of external capital may run sour.

Check out our latest analysis for Xcel Energy

As one of my mentors once told me, share price follows earnings per share (EPS). That means EPS growth is considered a real positive by most successful long-term investors. Xcel Energy managed to grow EPS by 5.9% per year, over three years. While that sort of growth rate isn't amazing, it does show the business is growing.

I like to see top-line growth as an indication that growth is sustainable, and I look for a high earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) margin to point to a competitive moat (though some companies with low margins also have moats). On the one hand, Xcel Energy's EBIT margins fell over the last year, but on the other hand, revenue grew. So if EBIT margins can stabilize, this top-line growth should pay off for shareholders.

The chart below shows how the company's bottom and top lines have progressed over time. For finer detail, click on the image.

earnings-and-revenue-history

Fortunately, we've got access to analyst forecasts of Xcel Energy's future profits. You can do your own forecasts without looking, or you can take a peek at what the professionals are predicting.

Story continues

Since Xcel Energy has a market capitalization of US$41b, we wouldn't expect insiders to hold a large percentage of shares. But we do take comfort from the fact that they are investors in the company. To be specific, they have US$47m worth of shares. That's a lot of money, and no small incentive to work hard. Even though that's only about 0.1% of the company, it's enough money to indicate alignment between the leaders of the business and ordinary shareholders.

It means a lot to see insiders invested in the business, but I find myself wondering if remuneration policies are shareholder friendly. A brief analysis of the CEO compensation suggests they are. For companies with market capitalizations over US$8.0b, like Xcel Energy, the median CEO pay is around US$12m.

The Xcel Energy CEO received total compensation of just US$4.1m in the year to . That's clearly well below average, so at a glance, that arrangement seems generous to shareholders, and points to a modest remuneration culture. CEO remuneration levels are not the most important metric for investors, but when the pay is modest, that does support enhanced alignment between the CEO and the ordinary shareholders. I'd also argue reasonable pay levels attest to good decision making more generally.

One positive for Xcel Energy is that it is growing EPS. That's nice to see. The fact that EPS is growing is a genuine positive for Xcel Energy, but the pretty picture gets better than that. With a meaningful level of insider ownership, and reasonable CEO pay, a reasonable mind might conclude that this is one stock worth watching. We should say that we've discovered 2 warning signs for Xcel Energy (1 doesn't sit too well with us!) that you should be aware of before investing here.

Of course, you can do well (sometimes) buying stocks that are not growing earnings and do not have insiders buying shares. But as a growth investor I always like to check out companies that do have those features. You can access a free list of them here.

Please note the insider transactions discussed in this article refer to reportable transactions in the relevant jurisdiction.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Read the original here:

I Built A List Of Growing Companies And Xcel Energy (NASDAQ:XEL) Made The Cut - Yahoo Finance

Is the COVID pandemic still an emergency?

If youre a student-loan borrower, the answer is yes. President Biden this week extended the COVID-era moratorium on student-debt repayment until Aug. 31, and since thats just a couple of months before the 2022 midterm elections, Biden will almost certainly extend it again. Debt payments may not resume until 2023.

But the migration emergency is over. On April 1, the Centers for Disease Control said it was time to end a controversial policy President Trump first imposed in 2020, known as Title 42 deportations. That comes from a law that allows the U.S. government to block migrants from entering the country for public health reasons. The Trump administration used the law to expel 400,000 migrants, and Biden has expelled another 1.2 million. The policy is now due to end on May 23, with most migrants once again going through the usual process of applying for entry.

Political pressure dominates both issues. Some liberal Democrats are pressuring Biden to use executive action to cancel up to $50,000 per borrower in student debt, with Biden resisting. He supports cancelation of up to $10,000 in debt, but wants Congress to do it through legislation. Democrats dont have the votes for that, so extending the moratorium is a kind of consolation prize for borrowers who hoped Biden and his fellow Democrats would ease student-debt burdens when they took power in Washington last year.

Many of the same liberal Democrats have been urging Biden to end Trumps migration blockade, arguing that it amounts to discrimination against oppressed people with legitimate asylum claims. But some Democrats and most Republicans want to keep Title 42 in place, whether as ongoing protection against COVID or just as a tool to limit inbound migration. Three states have filed a lawsuit trying to block the Biden change, and its possible Republicans and some Democrats in Congress could join forces to keep Title 42 in place through legislation.

Story continues

Whats missing is any coherent rationale for determining when the COVID emergency is formally over and the nation should revert to normal policies. Officially, the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines when a public health emergency is in effect, at 90-day intervals. The last such finding came on Jan. 16, with another renewal likely in late April. The emergency has been in effect continually since Jan. 27, 2020, giving the government authority to enact a variety of extraordinary measures.

[Follow Rick Newman on Twitter, sign up for his newsletter or send in your thoughts.]

In a practical sense, however, theres no longer an emergency in most parts of the economy. The labor market is surging and the unemployment rate has fallen to 3.6%, just one-tenth of a point higher than it was before the COVID pandemic erupted in 2020. Real GDP is well above pre-pandemic levels, even when adjusting for inflation. There are problems, such as 7.9% inflation. But consumers keep spending and growth looks solid for the rest of the year.

After Biden extended the student-loan repayment pause, Moodys Analytics argued the extension was unjustified.

The economics do not support a continuation of this policy that began in the teeth of the pandemic recession, economist Bernard Yaros wrote on April 7.

U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) before receiving a second COVID-19 booster vaccination in the Eisenhower Executive Office Buildings South Court Auditorium at the White House in Washington, U.S., March 30, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

He points out that the unemployment rate for workers with a college degree is an extremely low 2%, with others more in need of ongoing relief. The payment pause costs the government about $4 billion per month in foregone revenue, or $48 billion per year. Thats a sizable subsidy going to a relatively high-income slice of Americans.

Biden is obviously invoking emergency powers on a selective basis, to promote policies he thinks will best suit his political needs. Republicans are no better. Many of the conservative voices howling about the end of Title 42 are the same ones who fought against lockdowns, mask mandates and other efforts to limit the spread of COVID. Emergencies are in the eye of the beholder, no matter which party you belong to.

More of this confusion is coming. The federal rule requiring masks on planes and in airports is due to expire on April 18, but the government could renew it, with predictable arguments for and against masks likely to heat up. The surge in the Omicron COVID variant may abate as warmer weather arrives, and many states and cities have relaxed masking rules and other requirements. But another surge is always possible, perhaps next fall or winter when many Americans head back indoors.

There was never likely to be a clean ending to the COVID pandemic, since the virus will circulate indefinitely and vaccine effectiveness could wane. But politicians are making the ending, if there is one, about as muddy as possible. Americans should decide for themselves when the emergency is over, if they want any clarity at all.

Rick Newman is the author of four books, including "Rebounders: How Winners Pivot from Setback to Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman. You can also send confidential tips.

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Flipboard, and LinkedIn

Read more from the original source:

This week in Bidenomics: A tale of two emergencies - Yahoo Finance

Get ready to download another app if you want to watch every game your MLB team plays this season.

NBC's Peacock streaming service announced its full slate of exclusive games on Wednesday, a lineup of early Sunday games played primarily on the East Coast. The first game to get the treatment will be a Chicago White Sox-Boston Red Sox game on May 8, with NBC also airing the game.

Peacock will also be the exclusive home of the MLB Futures Game, an event that features top prospects from every team played during All-Star Week, which is at Los Angeles' Dodger Stadium this year.

If all this sounds familiar, it's because Peacock is only the second streaming service to announce a foray into the already crowded world of MLB broadcasting. Apple TV+ announced earlier this month it had acquired its own exclusive slate of Friday night games, starting with this week's New York Mets-Washington Nationals game.

That game will feature the much anticipated return of Max Scherzer to D.C. (assuming he's healthy), and will only be watchable via Apple's streaming service. Fortunately, Apple TV+ games won't require a paid subscription, but only for a limited time.

It is unclear if a paid Peacock subscription is required to watch the games (Peacock has a very limited free tier of accounts), though some cable subscribers (Xfinity, Cox and Spectrum) can get a free premium account.

All of that is in addition to what already existed for MLB viewers. Fans wanting to watch the local teams generally need a cable subscription to watch their team's primary network as well as games on ESPN and TBS, while out-of-market fans need to shell out for MLB.tv in addition to cable for those latter games. There are also games on Fox, which are available to anyone with an antenna.

Oh, and if you're a New York Yankees fan in New York, you're also going to need an Amazon Prime subscription. What a fun time to be a baseball fan.

See the original post:

Oh good, another streaming service is getting exclusive MLB games - Yahoo Sports

LeBron James will miss the Los Angeles Lakers' final two games of the season due to an ankle injury. The team re-evaluated James' injury and determined it best he sit for the rest of the season.

James sustained the injury March 27. He missed two games before returning to play against the New Orleans Pelicans on April 1 when the Lakers were still in contention for the play-in tournament. The Lakers lost that game, pushing the postseason further out of view.

James then missed the next three games due to the injury. During that time, the Lakers were officially eliminated from the postseason.

James is expected to make a full recovery from the ankle sprain.

LeBron James will miss the Lakers' final two games. (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

It was a disappointing season for the Lakers overall, but James turned in a strong performance. James, 37, averaged 30.3 points per game, the second-highest rate of his career.

James had a shot at winning the scoring title, but will not play enough games to qualify for the title. Players need to play 58 games to qualify for end-of-season awards. James played in 56 games.

In a historically close race, Philadelphia 76ers center Joel Embiid (30.42 ppg) and Milwaukee Bucks big Giannis Antetokounmpo (29.88) were vying with James for the scoring title.

James' performance wasn't enough to lift the Lakers most nights. It didn't help that Anthony Davis missed time due to injuries and Russell Westbrook had a down year.

With the Lakers missing the playoffs, James will have to figure out how to lead the team back to prominence next season. Davis, James and Westbrook are all under contract for at least one more season, but the Lakers will likely need to make wholesale changes in the offseason in order to contend in James' 20th NBA season.

Link:

Lakers say LeBron James will miss rest of the season due to ankle injury - Yahoo Sports

Meet Jon Friedman, the founder of Freight Farms, a company making farming possible anywhere in the world.

7 realistic tips on how to save more money each month (even if you don't make a lot)

When it comes to farming, only certain crops can develop in certain climates. With modern advances in refrigeration and transportation, many places have been able to get around this. Much of the food we get in our supermarket is only accessible to us because it was carefully refrigerated and transported from where it was created.

Shop Tinashes show-stopping looks from her In The Know cover shoot:

However, communities across the world cant always access certain crops. Freight Farms makes it possible by using shipping containers to create vertical farms that can hold up anywhere.

We use a shipping container to create a turnkey growing facility that can ship anywhere in the world and grow exactly the same in any climate, Friedman told In The Know.

The company also provides training, tools and resources to those seeking to operate one of its farms. Freight Farms flagship product is the Greenery S.

It is a 40-foot shipping container completely customized to growing precision levels of hydroponic vegetables, Friedman said. So, you can put one of these in any environment in the world, and it will grow 365 days a year, over a thousand heads of lettuce a week. It actually does over 500 different crops.

The Greenery S can produce pumpkins, watermelons, peppers, flowers, tomatoes and much more. What makes the Greenery S so innovative is that you dont need access to a large landmass or even water.

Were wicking water from the air and bringing that and filtering it back into the tank. Really, Greenery S is a way to democratize access to farming, he said.

The shipping container creates an instant, controlled environment at a far more affordable cost than a greenhouse or warehouse. Its simplicity allows just about anyone who wants to farm to use the Greenery S because science and engineering skills arent necessary to operate it.

Story continues

This can go a long way in addressing things like food scarcity caused by damage to the environment.

The need for alternative farming solutions is really driven by terrible land depletion, water resource scarcity, the risk in our supply chain centralized production and distribution doesnt really support all the people in the world and all the places that need access to it, Friedman said.

With the Greenery S, we tied that into renewable power distribution, so this is really the most sustainable way you can grow. And we need to make that change as a global population.

What's The Flip host Rack Hogan's dream sneaker release?

The post Freight Farms uses shipping containers to grow crops anywhere in the world appeared first on In The Know.

More from In The Know:

The 30 best tech deals you need to snag this weekend as low as $27

The perfect spring dress is only $50, so I immediately bought it in both colors

Nordstrom Rack just added a ton of new stuff to its sale section here are 50+ deals you seriously can't miss

The 5 types of summer dresses you need to add to your wardrobe

This is the No. 1 best mouthwash to completely get rid of bad breath for good

More here:

Freight Farms uses shipping containers to grow crops anywhere in the world - Yahoo Sports

SmartAsset: Is It Better to Take RMD Monthly or Annually

After a certain age, you must begin to take minimum withdrawals from your tax-advantaged retirement accounts. The exact amount of this required minimum distribution or RMD is determined by a number of factors, including your age and the amount you have saved up.

The IRS requires you to report this distribution on your annual taxes, so it has to happen by the end of each calendar year. Beyond that, though, you can structure this withdrawal based on your own financial interests. Most retirees collect their required minimum distributions either annually, quarterly or monthly. So long as you withdraw the minimum required amount by Dec. 31, the tax implications are unchanged.

Let's consider your options.

A financial expert could help you create a financial plan for your retirement needs and goals.

What Is the Required Minimum Distribution?

A required minimum distribution is the amount of money you must withdraw each year from a tax-advantaged retirement account. You can take out more than your RMD, but you must withdraw at least this much each year. The amount of your required minimum distribution is determined by your age and savings, and taxpayers can calculate it each year using the IRS' Uniform Lifetime Table.

For anyone who turned 70 on or after July 1, 2019, required minimum distributions begin at age 72. For all retirees who turned 70 before July 1, 2019, required minimum distributions begin at age 70 and six months.

The purpose of a required minimum distribution is so that the IRS can eventually collect the taxes that it deferred when you made contributions to your various retirement accounts. It applies to accounts such as 401(k)s, IRAs and almost any other form of retirement account on which you don't pay taxes. The only significant exceptions are Roth IRAs and other similarly situated accounts.

You must calculate a required minimum distribution for each retirement account in your name. This means that if you have three different qualifying retirement accounts, you must calculate the required minimum distribution for all three accounts. If you fail to withdraw (and pay taxes) on a required minimum distribution, you can be taxed at up to 50% of the required amount. (For example, if you were required to withdraw at least $10,000 and did not do so, you can face a tax bill of up to $5,000.)

Story continues

You can use an RMD, however, you see fit; the government just wants to make sure you eventually pay taxes on this money. The only restriction is that you cannot reinvest it in a tax-advantaged retirement account other than, in some cases, a Roth IRA.

Annual Withdrawals

SmartAsset: Is It Better to Take RMD Monthly or Annually

An annual withdrawal plan means that you calculate and withdraw your required minimum distribution in one lump sum each year. This is a perfectly acceptable approach to accounting, since your required minimum distribution is set by a pre-determined formula. You calculate it based on the value of your retirement accounts as of Dec. 31 the year before and using the Uniform Lifetime Table that the IRS releases for each year's tax filings.

So, for example, to calculate your required minimum distribution in 2022, you would use the value of your retirement accounts as of Dec. 31, 2021 and the Uniform Lifetime Table applicable to 2022.

Most taxpayers who choose to make annual withdrawals do so either at the beginning or at the end of each tax year. This is a matter of personal accounting since you can withdraw this money at any time. The one exception is that in the first year that you qualify for a required minimum distribution, you must begin making these withdrawals by April 1. For all years afterward the IRS has no deadline other than end of year.

Whenever you choose to withdraw your minimum distributions, there are pros and cons to the annual approach. The benefits to annual withdrawals can include:

Immediate resolution of your tax obligations. By withdrawing all of your required minimum distribution at once, at the start of the year, you get your tax obligation over with. You don't have to worry about forgetting or otherwise making a mistake during the rest of the year.

Reinvestment opportunities. If you have other strong investments, you can take your minimum distribution and invest it in those opportunities earlier, with more time for growth.

Potentially better growth. Since this is a tax advantaged account, the sooner you withdraw this money the sooner you pay taxes on it. By contrast, the longer you leave it alone the longer it can grow tax-free. Withdrawing it all at the end of the year can mean more growth in your retirement account over the long run. This is the biggest advantage to making annual withdrawals.

However, there are some downsides to annual withdrawals too. Those can include:

Potentially higher estimated taxes. If you pay taxes quarterly, for example if you own a business or generate self-employment income, you can significantly increase your estimated taxes by taking an early minimum distribution.

Cash flow disruption. Some people need the structure of a regular income for their financial planning purposes, which a lump sum withdrawal can disrupt.

Potentially forgetting. If you wait until the end of the year to make your minimum distribution, there's a chance you'll forget to do so altogether.

Risk of spending the tax money. When you withdraw money from your retirement account, you must pay taxes on the profits that account has accrued. If you take your RMD early in the year, there's a risk that you will spend the portion of that money that you will later need to pay taxes. (This depends on how you structure your account, as some retirement accounts will automatically withhold taxes on your behalf.)

Monthly/Quarterly Withdrawals

SmartAsset: Is It Better to Take RMD Monthly or Annually

The other common approach to required minimum distributions is for retirees to take this money either every month or every quarter. As with annual distributions, there is no best way to handle this money. Some retirees prefer taking a lump sum distribution each year. Others prefer a series of smaller monthly withdrawals. It's all up to you.

Readers should note that even this is not the only option. You can make distributions as frequently as your portfolio will allow transfers. However, monthly is the most frequent common approach.

The benefits to a monthly or quarterly approach can include:

Cash flow management. Making monthly withdrawals allows you to treat this as a regular income. Many retirees prefer this style of cash flow over a lump sum format, as it helps with personal finance and budgeting. This is often the biggest advantage to making monthly or quarterly withdrawals.

Estimated taxes. As noted in our section on annual withdrawals, if you pay quarterly taxes based on other income, having your required minimum distribution arrive in regular segments can make these estimated taxes easier.

Tax payments. If you make monthly withdrawals, it's often easier to have your portfolio manager automatically deduct any applicable income taxes so that you don't have to worry about setting the money aside.

Some potential downsides to a monthly or quarterly approach can include:

Reduced growth. The longer you leave your money in place, the more it can grow. If you take your withdrawals over the course of the year, your portfolio will lose some opportunities growth based on reduced capital.

Potential for miscalculation. While less of a concern if you work with a professional, if you withdraw your money in stages (rather than one lump sum) there's more chance that you'll miscalculate or otherwise make a mistake in your minimum withdrawal.

Ultimately, this comes down to the choice that's best for your finances. In most cases we can recommend framing the issue this way: Your money has the most potential for growth if you take your entire minimum distribution at the end of each calendar year. However, personal budgeting may be easiest if you take your minimum distribution in 12 monthly portions.

If you do take your minimum distribution at the end of the calendar year, make sure you set up an automatic withdrawal. Even professional brokers can get distracted around Christmas and New Year's, and you don't want to discover that your sell order got held up by the holidays.

Bottom Line

You can take your required minimum distribution at any point, so long as it happens before the end of the year. Most retirees either take their money in one lump sum at the end of the year, to give it the most time to grow tax-free. Others withdraw their money each month, to give themselves a regular stream of income.

Tips for Retirement Planning

According to the Federal Reserve, 60% of those with self-directed retirement accounts are not confident about their investment decisions. If you're one of them, why not hire a financial advisor? SmartAsset's free tool matches you with up to three financial advisors who serve your area, and you can interview your advisor matches at no cost to decide which one is right for you. If you're ready to find an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now.

Getting the RMD right is extremely important. The tax implications for this are huge, with potential liability up to 50% of the entire amount. So make sure you know how to calculate your required minimum distribution.

Photo credit: iStock.com/fstop123, iStock.com/PeopleImages iStock.com/PeopleImages

The post Is It Better to Take RMD Monthly or Annually appeared first on SmartAsset Blog.

Read the original:

Is It Better to Take RMD Monthly or Annually? - Yahoo Finance