What do Ben Bernanke and Tiger Woods have in common? The chairman of the Federal Reserve and the golf champion were crowned “Person of the Year 2009” by Time magazine and by the New York Times, respectively.
Time magazine chose Ben Bernanke as Person of the Year 2009. This choice seems surprising, even if it’s somewhat influenced by the American Democrats’ wish to give him a second term.
There’s no doubt that the man showed courage and determination in 2007 - 2008 by taking action that was above and beyond the traditional powers of a central bank. In doing so, he acted in concert with Jean-Claude Trichet of the European Central Bank, who dealt with the first wave of problems; bailing out IKB Deutsche Industriebank in Germany, and in the same week dealing with the panic provoked when BNP Paribas suspended the repayment of funds.
Whatever the merits of our big central bankers, we must not forget that they didn’t see the iceberg towards which the financial world was dangerously headed. That is especially the case with Ben Bernanke: he lacks a capacity to anticipate crises and was a victim of a form of ideological myopia.
On the subject of bank regulation, his ideological myopia simply followed that of Alan Greenspan. The refusal to see financial risks that numerous authoritative voices warned about was something he shared with his predecessor. It wasn’t until August 2008 that the subprime mortgage problem was considered to have real consequences. This was a perspective shared by the Republican Party, and George W. Bush had appointed Ben Bernanke. He was a proponent of laissez-faire, the ideology of the administration in place.
But what is important for the future is Bernanke’s vision and his capacity to preempt crises. Although he had the means to do otherwise, he acted with decision much too late. This makes the chairman of the Federal Reserve one of those responsible for the severity of the financial crisis.
In contrast to Alan Greenspan, who had a real ability to read the early warning signs of a crisis, Ben Bernanke is a pure economist and needs the confirmation of numbers before he will act, unless he is facing an obvious fact. This theoretical attitude makes one lose confidence in his leadership, and certainly does nothing to reassure us for the future, especially since he has never admitted his mistakes (as opposed to his predecessor) and seems more rigid than ever. He just stated once again that there wasn’t any risk to the American economy that could come from the financial sector.
I wouldn’t give the title of Person of the Year 2009 to any financier.
I was therefore intrigued by the suggestion to proclaim Tiger Woods Person of the Year 2009. He has certainly drawn attention to himself with his well-hidden extramarital adventures; his wife threw a fit that was the source of the car accident that spilled the beans. But unlike certain others, Bill Clinton for example, Woods immediately took responsibility for his errors and admitted to having failed his family. He also announced that he was withdrawing from a tournament, taking a break from professional golf and would focus on resolving his problems with his family.
Accenture, the large global consulting firm that had made Tiger Woods the symbol of its values, immediately let its champion go. Overnight, a debate opened on the weaknesses of using idols in the promotion of products. But through its actions, Accenture demonstrated the opposite of the champion qualities it pretends to emulate: cowardice. The efforts that Accenture is deploying to erase Tiger Woods are beyond ridiculous. Bravo Nike, which, contrary to popular choice, decided to continue to support the champion.
The United States Golf Association is already worried. When Woods stopped competing to take care of his knee, television audiences for golf dropped by 47 percent. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. That ought to shorten the champion’s absence.
We all have the tendency to idealize men and to forget, likeTiger Woods said, that they are “fallible human beings.” What allows Tiger Woods to be the person of the year is his status as the top golfer in the world, with nearly double the points of his nearest competitor. He’s a champion without parallel and an incarnation of the American dream.
This seems to me more real than the performance of the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who, as the New York Times reminds us, believed like all of Washington that “housing prices would go up in perpetuity to support an economy leveraged past the hilt.”
Bravo Tiger.
Qu’ont Ben Bernanke et Tiger Woods en commun ? Le Président de la Reserve Federale et le champion de golf ont été couronnés « personne de l’année 2009 », respectivement par Time Magazine et par le New York Times.
Time Magazine a choisi Ben Bernanke comme personne de l’année 2009. Ce choix parait surprenant, même s’il est quelque peu influencé par un souhait des Démocrates Américains de donner un second mandat au Président de la Reserve Fédérale.
Il ne fait aucun doute que l’homme a eu du courage et de la détermination en 2007-2008 en intervenant sur les marchés au-delà des attributions classiques d’une Banque Centrale. Ce faisant, il agissait de concert avec Jean-Claude Trichet à la Banque Centrale Européenne qui eut à essuyer les plâtres d’IndustriKreditbank en Allemagne et de la panique provoquée par l’interruption du remboursement de fonds de la BNP Paribas la même semaine.
Quels que soient les mérites de nos grands banquiers centraux, il ne faut pas oublier qu’ils n’ont pas vu l’iceberg vers lequel le monde financier avançait de manière dangereuse. C’est particulièrement le cas de Ben Bernanke : ce faisant il était à la fois victime d’une forme de myopie idéologique et d’une absence de visibilité ou de vision.
Sa myopie idéologique ne faisait que suivre celle d’Alan Greenspan en matière de réglementation bancaire. Le refus d’admettre, de voir ou de prévoir un risque systémique que de nombreuses voix autorisées annonçaient, était partagé par son prédécesseur. Il fallut attendre aout 2008 pour que la crise du subprime soit considérée comme ayant des conséquences systémiques. C’est la une vision partagée par le parti républicain : Ben Bernanke a été nommé par George W. Bush. Il était partisan du laissez-faire, l’idéologie de l’administration en place.
Mais ce qui est important pour l’avenir est la vision de l’homme et sa capacite de preempter les crises: le fait qu’il ait agi avec décision mais trop tard alors qu’il en avait les moyens, fait du Président de la Reserve Fédérale un des responsables de la gravite de la crise financière. A la différence d’Alan Greenspan qui avait une vraie capacité de lire les signes avant-coureurs des crises et de tenter d’y parer, Ben Bernanke est un pur économiste et a besoin des confirmations chiffrées avant d’agir, sauf s’il est en face d’une évidence. Cette attitude théorique a fait perdre confiance dans son leadership, et rassure certainement pas pour l’avenir, d’autant plus qu’il n’a jamais admis ses erreurs (a la différence de son prédécesseur) et semble plus rigide que jamais. Il vient encore de préciser qu’il n’y avait pas de risque pour l’économie américaine qui pourrait provenir de la sphère financière.
Je ne donnerais à aucun financier le titre de personne de l’année en 2009.
C’est pour cela que j’ai été intrigué par la suggestion de proclamer Tiger Woods Personne de l’Année 2009. Certes il s’est fait remarquer par des aventures extraconjugales qu’il avait bien cachées, et son épouse à piqué une colère qui a été a l’origine de l’accident de voiture qui a dévoilé le pot aux roses. Mais a la différence de certains autres (Bill Clinton par exemple…) il a immédiatement assumé ses erreurs et admis avoir lâche sa famille. Il a aussi annoncé qu’il interrompait ses championnats et qu’il réglerait le problème à l’intérieur du cénacle familiale.
Avec un grand courage, Accenture, la grande firme de consulting mondiale, qui avait fait de Tiger Woods le symbole de ses valeurs, a immédiatement lâché son champion. « Go on, be a Tiger » « Vas-y, sois un Tigre ». Du jour au lendemain, pour des errements conjugaux qui n’ont rien à voir avec toutes les qualités du champion, s’ouvrait un débat sur les fragilités de l’utilisation d’idoles dans la promotion des produits. Mais, ce faisant, Accenture a démontré l’inverse des qualités du champion qu’elle prétend émuler : la couardise. Les efforts qu’Accenture déploie pour effacer Tiger Woods sont au-delà du ridicule. Bravo Nike, qui a –au contraire- décidé de continuer a soutenir le champion.
Déjà l’association américaine du golf est inquiète. Lorsque Tiger Woods a interrompu les compétitions pour soigner son genou, les audiences télévisuelles des championnats de golf ont baisse de … 47%. Il y a des centaines de millions de dollars en jeu. Cela devrait raccourcir le purgatoire du champion.
Nous avons tous tendance à idéaliser des hommes et à oublier. Comme Tiger Woods l’a dit de lui-meme, que ce sont « des êtres humains faillibles ». Ce qui permet de faire de Tiger Woods la personne de l’année est son classement comme premier golfeur mondial avec pres de deux fois les points de son concurrent le plus proche. C’est un champion hors pair et une incarnation du rêve américain.
Cela me parait plus réel que la performance du Président de la Reserve Fédérale qui, comme le New York Times le rappelle, a cru comme tout Washington « que les prix des habitations allaient monter sans fin, et empêcher l’effondrement d’une économie surendettée a l’extrême ».
Bravo Tiger.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
[T]he U.S. led postwar order is unravelling. In its place, a contest for influence and legitimacy is gathering pace, with China eager to fill the vacuum.
Accenture partners claim that the company enforces high ethical standards but the facts shows differently.
Douglas Scrivner responded to a SEC related to the reestructuring costs that http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1143908/000095013706000977/filename1.htm
“The partners did not pay the tax liability at the time of the reorganization transaction because the Company and its external advisors felt there was a reasonable possibility of a favorable outcome. The Company and its external advisors believed the tax positions related to the restructuring transactions were appropriate and supportable under local tax law and the Company intends to defend, as needed, tax positions taken by the partners. A favorable outcome is still possible through either issues not being identified on audit by tax authorities, a successful defense of the position, or expiration of the statute of limitations, so it is not appropriate to pay the tax liability at the time of the transaction, or at any time, unless administrative and legal processes have concluded and resulted in an actual unfavorable outcome.”
In page 16 of the “NOTICE OF THE 2010 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS”
( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1467373/000119312509251604/dpre14a.htm ) is stated:
“Senior Executive Tax Costs
The Company has informed approximately 2,500 of our senior executives that if the senior executive reported for tax purposes the transactions involved in connection with our transition to a corporate structure in 2001, the Company will, in certain circumstances, provide a legal defense to that individual if his or her reporting position is challenged by the relevant tax authority. In the event such a defense is unsuccessful, and the senior executive is then subject to extraordinary financial disadvantage, the Company will review such circumstances for that individual and find an appropriate way to avoid severe financial damage to that individual.”
In the newspaper el Mundo there was informed that Accenture (and therefore all shareholders) have paid 110 million euros, plus the penalty related with the unpaid taxes of the 100 Spanish Partners in 2001 reestructuring. http://www.elmundo.es/mundodinero/2008/06/20/economia/1213922650.html
If now as declared there are 2500 senior executives that might be in the same situation, it is stright forward to have a direct correlation of the possible personal tax impact on former senior executives that Accenture is commenting it might be paid by the company and therefore by all Accenture shareholders.
Which Ethical Standards are higher, Mr. Woods’s or Accenture’s
Accenture partners claim that the company enforces high ethical standards but the facts shows differently.
Douglas Scrivner responded to a SEC related to the reestructuring costs that http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1143908/000095013706000977/filename1.htm
“The partners did not pay the tax liability at the time of the reorganization transaction because the Company and its external advisors felt there was a reasonable possibility of a favorable outcome. The Company and its external advisors believed the tax positions related to the restructuring transactions were appropriate and supportable under local tax law and the Company intends to defend, as needed, tax positions taken by the partners. A favorable outcome is still possible through either issues not being identified on audit by tax authorities, a successful defense of the position, or expiration of the statute of limitations, so it is not appropriate to pay the tax liability at the time of the transaction, or at any time, unless administrative and legal processes have concluded and resulted in an actual unfavorable outcome.”
In page 16 of the “NOTICE OF THE 2010 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS”
( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1467373/000119312509251604/dpre14a.htm ) is stated:
“Senior Executive Tax Costs
The Company has informed approximately 2,500 of our senior executives that if the senior executive reported for tax purposes the transactions involved in connection with our transition to a corporate structure in 2001, the Company will, in certain circumstances, provide a legal defense to that individual if his or her reporting position is challenged by the relevant tax authority. In the event such a defense is unsuccessful, and the senior executive is then subject to extraordinary financial disadvantage, the Company will review such circumstances for that individual and find an appropriate way to avoid severe financial damage to that individual.”
In the newspaper el Mundo there was informed that Accenture (and therefore all shareholders) have paid 110 million euros, plus the penalty related with the unpaid taxes of the 100 Spanish Partners in 2001 reestructuring.
http://www.elmundo.es/mundodinero/2008/06/20/economia/1213922650.html
If now as declared there are 2500 senior executives that might be in the same situation, it is stright forward to have a direct correlation of the possible personal tax impact on former senior executives that Accenture is commenting it might be paid by the company and therefore by all Accenture shareholders.
Which Ethical Standards are higher, Mr. Woods’s or Accenture’s