Did Elin 'tee-off' using Tiger's face?

I know it's a little delayed, but with a recent admission from former Leafs coach Pat Burns that Tiger Woods had his teeth knocked out by his wife Eli, I figured I needed to offer my own two cents on Tiger-gate

Honestly, I don't follow golf - never have, most likely never will. But scandal is definitely a forte of mine and given the scale of Tiger's celebrity, I think his sexcapades is the scandal of the 2000s.

But the aforementioned admission by Burns only reinforced what I believed - Elin and Tiger had a confrontation before his car crash and it was likely physical.

Although I, like everyone else, don't know what was said before the crash, you know something went down - it's common sense.

I mean, c'mon, who tries to "save" someone from a car crash by smashing in the back window? Why not the front?

And speaking of the crash, why do you need to save someone through a back window when the crash was minor and either front doors could have been used?

Plus, the lack of public appearances by Tiger only serves to underscore all the gossip - and it has made an ideal case for public relations students about what not to do in a crisis!

But here's the real reason why I decided to write today - this case has taken on a new domestic abuse angle.

If Elin in fact did hit Tiger after reading text messages on his phone, as was suggested by Burns and his sources, then that's domestic abuse. She physically assaulted him plain and simple.

Of course, some will say that because she's a woman, it doesn't count. For some reason, society believes it's wrong for a man to hit a woman but if the roles are reversed, the rules are different - and that shouldn't be.

Domestic abuse is domestic abuse, regardless of if it's committed by a man or a woman. It's a physical violation of one spouse's right to a personal and physical security!

So Elin, hun, it's time to call Chris Brown because you'll need a lawyer soon!

And lucky for you, I hear Mark Geragos is available!

Backflows, bubbles, & bust: The reality of quantitative easing

So here's the thing – quantitative easing (QE) is not the type of topic that usually comes up during dinner parties. It’s complex, confusing, and frankly, boring.

But given the Bank of England’s (BoE) faith that it will lead the UK out of the recession, it is important to understand what exactly it is – and more importantly, what’s at stake because like all the other recession-busting policies, it's the taxpayer on the hook if anything goes wrong.

Back in March 2009 the BoE made two announcements: first, its lending rate would be reduced to the historic low of 0.5%; secondly, a QE programme would be introduced to pump money into the economy.

In a nutshell, QE means that the BoE will purchase bonds held by private and institutional investors and will crediting their accounts immediately – the end goal is that the freed money will be used elsewhere in the economy. Originally, the Bank allocated £75 billion for the scheme but it has now increased to £178.291 billion and could tap out at £200 billion.

Now, the argument in favour of QE lies in the BoE’s mandate of keeping inflation steady at 2%, +/- 1%. In early 2009, deflation was imminent and lead to the bank engaging in QE to raise the rate of inflation to its target zone.

And it’s been successful at doing that. The most recent inflation figures show that inflation in October increased to 1.5%, up from 1.1% in September. However, inflation will likely remain volatile given the unpredictable price of oil and the upcoming change in VAT to 17.5%.

Combine that with the fact that the money generated by QE is beginning to flow into the economy, and the BoE could find itself forced to deal with a backflow in the form of high inflation.

And this backflow is made worse by the fact that, as the Financial Times’ Gillian Tett argued at a recent conference on the future of the UK economy, the BoE’s QE programme is akin to water being forced through a pipeline with the hope that it trickles out at the end.

And, as Tett added, given that billions of dollars have already been pumped through the banking pipeline, the outcome could be a bubble of inflated asset values.

Need proof?

Take a look at the FTSE-100, which has surged ahead 55.5% after hitting a six-year low in March 2009.

Recently, on Monday, November 16, it hit a 14-month high of 5,382.67 as investors with an appetite for commodity-based equities added 86.3 points to the index. That resulted in the index hitting its highest point since the September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Even the BoE acknowledges that equity prices have risen dramatically since the start of the QE programme.

“In the month leading up to the MPC’s meeting on 7–8 October, the prices of many assets had increased. Equity prices had risen by around 50% since their March lows, but still remained at least 25% below their pre-crisis highs,” said the BoE report.

And looking ahead, another respected Financial Times columnist John Kay has repeatedly argued that without adequate structural economic reform, the world would experience a bust in the form of economic turmoil far worse than the one experienced late last year.

So with that being said, let’s be realistic about QE.

While well-intended, the BoE’s QE policy has lead to three distinct phenomena: backflow, in the form of inflation as too much money is pushed through too quickly; a bubble from inflated asset values; and a possible bust, as the structural problems plaguing the economic system are ignored.

It’s as though the BoE believes that by throwing money at a problem, it will go away.

Then again, isn't it cliché to think that you can throw money at a problem and expect it to be solved?

Failed lessons from the Northern Rock experience

You would think that Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England (BoE), is sitting in his office at the BoE's headquarters on Threadneedle Street with a cup of tea, a big smile plastered across his face, and that certain sense of satisfaction that comes from being right.

After all, the outgoing EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently ordered Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) to divest some of their assets in order to comply with the EU’s competition policy. Under the terms published in various news reports, RBS will sell 318 branches, representing 14% of its retail network, while Lloyds will sell at least 600 of its UK branches.

So naturally, King must be happy seeing two large banks reduced in size. Especially since it was more than 5 months ago that King, at the annual Mansion House gathering of City bankers, argued that “too big to fail” banks needed to be reduced in size.

In a speech that read like a sharp rebuke of the light-touch regulatory stance that had intoxicated politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, King suggested that deposit insurance schemes should limited to smaller, narrow, retail-focused banks, and that banks deemed “too big to fail” should be forced to keep larger capital reserves. And all banks, regardless of size, should be mandated to create a living will, a document that would make winding up a failed bank easy – as opposed to the messes created with Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Northern Rock.

And even though the EU is forcing Britain’s hand in breaking up two of the largest banks, I doubt that King will be sleeping better at night. This isn’t what he wants.

King’s not just concerned about the size of banks in the literal sense – he’s also concerned about the complex and incestuous relationship that’s developed between conservative, deposit-taking retail banking and the riskier, prone-to-the-whims-of-the-market investment banking.

In essence, the EU’s recent actions don’t deal with what King sees as the fundamental issue – banks are simply too big and too important to fail.

At its most basic level, banks, through their retail divisions, perform such a vital function in society that if they went under, we would be faced with chaos.

Consider the fundamental banking function – to facilitate the transfer of capital from savers to borrowers. This is why you and I can go and get a mortgage at a High Street bank – as opposed to negotiating a loan from our neighbourhood loan shark in some dark alleyway!

Plus, banking, as an industry sector, relies on consumer confidence to keep it moving. It’s that very confidence that leads people to put their hard-earned money into a deposit envelope and then into the deposit machine. They believe that their money will be safe.

And when there’s fear that money isn’t safe, you get runs on the bank (see Northern Rock) and people holding onto their money at home. But then this itself comes with problems when people try to act as their own banker.

Consider the story that ran back in June of a woman in Tel Aviv who threw out her mother’s old mattress which had $1 million USD stuffed inside? According to a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s website, the elderly woman claimed to have had "traumatic experiences with banks" leading to her decision to hold on to her own money.

Just think of how many more “traumatic experiences with banks” customers will be left if a bank fails – and how many more mattresses full of millions of dollars will be clogging up landfills!

All jokes aside, taking this consumer confidence argument a step further, if just one bank fails resulting in a run, you can bank (pardon the pun) on other queues of people wanting their money forming outside other High Street bank branches.

And while in theory, this sounds okay, as people will be able to still purchase goods and services and will learn to live on cash, the reality is that money isn’t a valuable investment – and in fact, it loses its value over time thanks to inflation.

For example, let’s say you have save £2, the cost of a small latte at Starbucks. With inflation at 2% per year, your £2 savings won’t be enough to purchase that same cup of coffee next year as business costs – the cost of things like coffee, sugar, milk, and labour – will have risen, thus reducing the value of your £2 savings.

And so, simply from a consumer standpoint, banks cannot fail because of the implications for consumers and consumer confidence in the entire banking system – a point that journalists like Alton E. Drew seem to miss when they argue that just because one bank fails, it doesn’t mean the whole system will.

Granted, if one bank fails, there is a possibility that no other banks will fail – chalk it up to “market forces. But that’s not really the point.

Most importantly, just one bank failure leads to undermined confidence in the banking and financial system. And given the shaky ground that the economy is on right now, a bank failure, combined with unstable employment trends, could lead to massive retail bank runs – runs that most banks couldn’t meet with such low in-house money reserves.

Thus, banks cannot simply be allowed to fail. There is too much vested consumer interest if a bank fails. Not only do consumers risk losing their deposits and the value of their money, but their confidence in the entire system is shaken.

Let’s remember that banks, fundamentally, exist to serve the consumer and use their trust and confidence to maintain operations.

Credit King for seeing that a system built on a shaky foundation is bound to come crashing down sooner or later – but that we have an ideal opportunity to ensure that never happens.

Now, if only those in the power corridors of the Washington and Wall Street, Downing Street and the City, would get that – then again, perhaps the Northern Rock experience just wasn’t enough.

Confessions of a cross-border shopper ... How to maximize your Black Friday 2009 campaign!

The countdown is on!

It's just a few days until the one day that every professional shopper trains for.

That's right, I'm talking about Black Friday – the day after the American Thanksgiving.

And if you aren't familiar with Black Friday, think of it as the Holy Grail of all shopping days!

This year, the sales and shopping mayhem happen on Friday, November 27, 2009. And even though the Canadian dollar isn't on par with the American dollar, the sales this year will be better than last year's, as retailers look to lure in customers during the ongoing financial crisis.

Now, before you accuse me of being unpatriotic by cross-border shopping, just remember how dependent our economy is on the American economy.

Think of it this way – I get discounted merchandise, they get a healthier economy, and by extension, we get a better trading partner. It's win-win-win!

Two years ago, my Black Friday campaign was a huge success. The deals I scored during my two-day powerhouse shopping marathon were well worth sacrificing sleep and decent meals.

Sadly, I'm overseas studying during the 2009 Black Friday campaign so I won't be able to participate.

Nonetheless, in my capacity as Canada's self-proclaimed #1-ranked cross border shopper, I thought I would offer 5 tips for first-time (and maybe even returning) Black Friday participants.

So here are my top 5 tips for making your Black Friday 2009 campaign successful:

1.) Book your hotel well in advance

Hotels fill-up fast and the rates tend to be higher during the American Thanksgiving holiday period. Check out websites like Kayak.com and Hotwire.com for a listing of cheap, last-minute hotel deals in shopping hotspots like Buffalo, NY and Erie, PA.

2.) Get lots of sleep the night before your shopping expedition

During the sales, you cannot afford to be tired – it affects your ability to calculate prices and make good decisions. Black Friday demands you bring your A-game.

Plus, some malls open their stores at 12am on Friday morning. And what would you rather be doing – shopping or sleeping?

3.) Check out online fliers and make a list of what you really want

Check out websites that post Black Friday ads, such as

- Black Friday Ads - The Official Black Friday 2009 Website

- Black Friday Ads for Black Friday 2009

- Black Friday 2009 Ads

If you want constant updates, I recommend signing up for their newsletters as you'll be notified once a new flier is released.

Be on the lookout for time-sensitive door crashers. If you see one you really want, visit that store first – remember that the lineups for stores like Best Buy, Target, and Wal-Mart are always long and people start lining up early on Thursday night.

4.) Work in teams and always communicate with each other

Get a few friends or family members together, combine your lists and head out to the stores. This way you can split up and tackle different stores or malls, while ensuring you get the items you want.

And trust me, when dealing with a large lineup, its a blessing when one person waits in line while the others shop. This maximizes your bargain hunting time!

Just make sure you have a fully charged cell phone – communication is key when group shopping!

5.) Bring a large bottle of water and a few snacks

Personally, I always carry a bottle of water and a few snacks – granola or energy bars work the best. This way I can keep my energy levels up while not wasting my time standing in line at the food court.

So there you have it – the top 5 Black Friday shopping tips from Canada's self-proclaimed #1-ranked cross border professional shopper.

While Black Friday shopping can be an intense experience, with a little planning and some teamwork, it can be quite simple and actually very fun. And really, the chance to snag awesome deals is more than worth any small sacrifice.

And so I wish you good luck, but remember ...

Shopping is just like a sport – you've got to be prepared, work in teams, and keep your eye on the gold!

Only in this sport, the gold medal is finding that one item at the perfect bargain-basement price!

Confessions of a cross-border shopper ... How to maximize your Black Friday 2009 campaign!

Controversy strikes the WWF's new online video

Then again, if it's controversial, people will talk about it which generates buzz which generates online and mainstream media coverage which results in (un)healthy debate on particular issues.

And I'm all for this, as debate and discourse informs and educates everyone on important societal issues.

But frankly I feel as though controversy has become the new black because everything these days is deemed controversial - from Obama's speech to young Americans about the importance of education to my neighbour's decision to wear white after Labour Day, you can't escape the "controversial" label.

Of course there's differing levels of controversy, but in society's effort to be politically correct, we have a culture where anything and everything can and often is deemed to be controversial to at least one segment of the population.

Take for example the new online video from the World Wildlife Fund. It's generating lots of buzz online because it compares the terrorist attacks of September 11 to the 2004 tsunami that ravaged southeast Asia and it powerfully points out that the tsunami killed 100 times as many people.



I'm sure this video will be deemed controversial and disrespectful over at Fox News - if anything, the image of more planes flying towards the New York skyline will get the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter all up in arms.

But truth be told, it's an excellent ad. It shows that even one of the most devastating human-created disasters is no match for the power of the earth.

After all, hell hath no fury like Mother Nature scorned!

But what's your view on it?

Is it too controversial?

Or does it do it's job in making people think twice about the raw power of weather and geological processes of the Earth?

Clement steps up for Canada while Ericsson is just plain pathetic

Well, just a few hours after my last post on the takeover of Nortel's wireless division by Sweden's Ericsson, it looks like Industry Minister Tony Clement might take a more proactive approach in the auction of Nortel's assets.

According to a report in the Toronto Star, Clement said that "he will consider intervening in the auction of Nortel assets on grounds of Canadian national interest" while adding that "he would vet the Nortel sale after Tuesday's court approval of the transaction."

Finally, the government decides to stand up for Canadians and our technological prowess!

And yes, I'd like to think that my previous post had a little something to do with Clement's change of heart - of course it didn't, but I can still dream!

One thing that's not a dream - although at first I thought it was - is Ericsson's utterly pathetic request for financing from the Canadian government to complete the transaction.

In the same article, Ericsson said it would attempt to secure a loan through Export Development Canada.

I can't believe that Ericsson's Chief Financial Officer, Hans Vestberg, went on record and said, "We will sit down with the Canadian government and see if we can get financing from them."

I just don't get it. You bid to buy a company and then you ask for financing help!

Talk about horrible strategy and beyond atrocious, Enron-worthy accounting practices!

So memo to Ericsson ...

You can't afford it - don't buy it!

You don't have the money - you don't get the company!

It's as simple as that!

And frankly, the government, through the Export Development Canada programme you hope will grant you the loan, shouldn't offer you a dime!

Canadian taxpayers shouldn't be using valuable tax dollars to contribute to the hollowing out of Canada's technological infrastructure!

That's right - Canada will not pay to export jobs, its businesses, and its technology!

And good luck finding a country that will!