The problem with Tiger

As we've seen from this weeks performance Tiger's game has gone right off and whilst its correct to say that his tee to green isn't what he is capable of, the real problem lies with his putting. Specifically the short putts.

Tiger used to be near unstoppable from inside 5 feet but that has all changed. The statistics tell the story.

Inside 5 feet
2010 - ranked 59th
2009 - 4th
2008 - 1st

Between 5 feet and 10 feet
2010 - 150th
2009 - 9th
2008 - 72nd

Putts per round
2010 - 129th
2009 - 22nd
2008 - 20th
2007 - 48th
2006 - 137th
2005 - 33rd
2004 - 20th
2003 - 32nd

Unfortunately I can't get the short putt stats prior to 2008 but I'm pretty confident that Tiger would have been ranked up high. He has always had a high overall putting ranking except for the blip in 2006.

This loss of confidence with the short putts must be affecting the rest of his game in my opinion. There is now enormous pressure on him on every shot he makes as he knows he cannot putt himself out of trouble any more.

Personally, I don't think his overall game has deteriorated that much. Its always been his putting that has been the difference. Simply, he made the putts when it mattered.

Now putting is more or less a confidence thing. I think its fair to say that the traumas of the last 9 months have really got to him mentally. He changed putters at the British Open and that was the first sign to me that he is starting to get very concerned.

Can he come back though ?

Well, he needs to get his shit sorted off the course and get that swagger back. I think all it will take is a few good putting rounds where he holes everything under 6 feet and all will be well with the world though. But we have seen great players never come back from putting woes before.

If you're a golf punter then watch Tigers putting carefully the next few tournalments. If you detect that he is getting his mojoe back then you might be able to get some value. However, until then its going to be very difficult for him unless the course being played does not have much putting emphasis.

Manulife Q2 2010 Earnings

Citigroup Global Markets, 5 August 20102Q10 a miss – Operating EPS of (C$1.36) compared unfavorably to 2Q09 EPS of C$1.09, and was well below our estimate of $0.00 and FC of (C$0.62). While disappointing, we did not find much during our initial review of the results with respect to business line performance that came as a surprise in terms of sales or underwriting trends. But, Canadian GAAP

Golf - WGC Bridgestone Invitational

Ross Fisher, 1 unit to win @ $48 (betfair)
Has claims to being the hottest player on the planet at the moment with a series of excellent performances in the past month. Hits the ball long, gets great GIR statistics and putting is above average which are all the key statistics you want to excel in this week. Only slight pot are his two disappointing efforts here the past two years but he was nowhere near the golfer he is now. Excellent value.

JB Holmes, 0.75 units to win @$110 (betfair) *unmatched
This course suits the long hitters as the fairways are soft and generally easy to hit so big bombers like JB can go for it without fear. Three top 20 finishes in his last 4 events and is knocking on the door for a big victory. His putting is under-rated too.

Graeme McDowell, 0.75 units to win @ $85 (betfair)
This is just a ridiculous price. Since his US Open victory, Graeme has performed most credibly at a time when he probably wasn't concentrating fully on his golf. he is now ranked 11th in the world yet we can get $85 about him whilst someone like Mickelsen who is clearly not at his best is served up at $15. McDowell is a brilliant putter and id he hits his share of greens in reg will be high up on the leaderboard towards the end.

Paul Casey, 0.5 units to win @ $42 (betfair)
One of my favourite players and seems to be over this injury curse that has got him the last 12 months or so. Finished 8th here two years ago and if the course is wet it will definitely suit his style.

With the smallish field and there being no cut I'm going to have a dabble in the H2H markets this week.

Matt Kucher to beat Tim Clark, 2 units @ $1.90 (centrebet)
This course simply does not suit Clark and Kucher is in good form.

Dustin Johnson to beat Hunter Mahan, 1 unit @ $1.93 (sportsbet)
I expect the big hitting Johnson to go well here.

Rickie Fowler to beat Adam Scott, 1 unit @ $1.93 (sportsbet)
The emphasis on putting could be Adams downfall here and I sense his game has been a little off since his won a few months ago.

Well Kuchar demolished Clark but all other bets fell by the wayside. Smallish loss on the event.

Understanding About Secured Loan

A secured loan is a loan in which the borrower pledges some asset (e.g. a car or property) as collateral for the loan, which then becomes a secured debt owed to the creditor who gives the loan. The debt is thus secured against the collateral — in the event that the borrower defaults, the creditor takes possession of the asset used as collateral and may sell it to regain some or all of the amount originally lent to the borrower, for example, foreclosure of a home.


From the creditor's perspective this is a category of debt in which a lender has been granted a portion of the bundle of rights to specified property. If the sale of the collateral does not raise enough money to pay off the debt, the creditor can often obtain a deficiency judgment against the borrower for the remaining amount. The opposite of secured debt/loan is unsecured debt, which is not connected to any specific piece of property and instead the creditor may only satisfy the debt against the borrower rather than the borrower's collateral and the borrower.

Purpose:

There are two purposes for a loan secured by debt. In the first purpose, by extending the loan through securing the debt, the creditor is relieved of most of the financial risks involved because it allows the creditor to take the property in the event that the debt is not properly repaid. In exchange, this permits the second purpose where the debtors may receive loans on more favorable terms than that available for unsecured debt, or to be extended credit under circumstances when credit under terms of unsecured debt would not be extended at all. The creditor may offer a loan with attractive interest rates and repayment periods for the secured debt.

Types:

* A mortgage loan is a secured loan in which the collateral is property, such as a home.
* A nonrecourse loan is a secured loan where the collateral is the only security or claim the creditor has against the borrower, and the creditor has no further recourse against the borrower for any deficiency remaining after foreclosure against the property.
* A foreclosure is a legal process in which mortgaged property is sold to pay the debt of the defaulting borrower.
* A repossession is a process in which property, such as a car, is taken back by the creditor when the borrower does not make payments due on the property. Depending on the jurisdiction, it may or may not require a court order.

How to create secured debt:

Debt can become secured by a contractual agreement, statutory lien, or judgment lien. Contractual agreements can be secured by either a Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) loan, where the creditor takes a security interest in the items purchased (i.e. vehicle, furniture, electronics); or, a Non-Purchase Money Security Interest (NPMSI) loan, where the creditor takes a security interest in items that the debtor already owns.

Basel Tone Improves - Positive for Canadian Banks

Scotia Capital, 28 July 2010• The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision reached broad agreement July 26, 2010 on the overall design of the capital and liquidity reform package including definition of capital, the treatment of counterparty credit risk, the leverage ratio, and the global liquidity standard.• In general, the agreement seems to provide a more balanced and constructive approach to

Health Insurance Coverage: The Primer One

For this blog post, I found an interesting and useful article regarding Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage...It's the primer one!!!

How health insurance coverage it is???

Please read the article below:

Understanding Health Insurance Coverage: A Primer
by: Peter Lenkefi

Health Insurance Coverage: What are ‘Covered’ Services?
Health insurance coverage is a contract used to determine medical benefits that are covered, or not covered, between you and your insurance provider. The insurance company, based on a fee that you provide them on a regular basis, promises to pay health insurance coverage on certain items or benefits listed in that contract. These are called ‘covered’ services. ‘Covered’ services can include a wide variety of things, such as implements, prescriptions, services (such as massage), checkups, tests and/or research.

Your contract should also list all of the things NOT covered in your health insurance coverage – these are items or services that you will need to pay for out of your own pocket, should you require them.

Health Insurance Coverage: What is a Medical Necessity? How is this Different from Covered Services?
Just as it seems, a medical necessity is something that your health professional has deemed a required service/ item that will affect your health negatively should you decide not to purchase it. However, just because your doctor tells you something is a medical necessity does not mean your health insurance actually offers coverage for it.

Since insurance companies decide what health coverage they will and will not provide, you really have no leeway in this area.

Health Insurance Coverage: What Do I Do?
Most doctors try and keep themselves abreast as to what the major insurance companies do, and do not cover when it comes to health coverage. However, there are a LOT of plans out there, so this just isn’t enough. So how can you avoid any nasty surprises during an emergency?

Read your health insurance coverage. You’re better off knowing what your health insurance company will, and will not provide coverage for right off the bat. Then, if your doctor decides on a treatment plan that isn’t covered, you can ask for alternatives that may be.
If there are questions regarding your health insurance coverage, do not hesitate to contact the insurance company. Questions are good, and they expect them.

Health Insurance Coverage: What Do I Do if Something I Need Isn’t Covered?
The gross majority of what your doctor orders for you will be covered in your health insurance plan. If you do get a treatment or supply that isn’t covered, you can always challenge the health insurance coverage. You may not be the only one who requires the same type of service, benefit or item – so you’ll end up fighting not just for yourself, but for others in the same situation.

Ask your doctor for their side, and use this in your claim. It may not help in the end, but if your doctor is on your side, you may be able to convince the health insurance company that coverage is required.


About the author:
For more more information about health insurance coverage please visit http://www.1health-center.com/articles/Health-Insurance-Coverage.php

Estate Tax to return in 2011..... Yankees owner....

The Star-Ledger-US Presswire

If former New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner's estate was valued at over $1 billion, the fact that he died while the estate tax is not in effect may have saved his heirs $500 million in taxes.

BIG BILL COMING


Unless Congress acts, the federal estate tax, which was repealed this year, will return in 2011 with a lower exemption and a higher tax rate.



By Sandra Block, USA TODAY

In life, George Steinbrenner beat the Red Sox. In death, he beat the IRS.

Steinbrenner's death on July 13 occurred six months after the federal estate tax expired. Forbes magazine estimates the Yankees owner's net worth was $1.15 billion, so the timing of Steinbrenner's death could save his heirs up to $500 million in federal estate taxes.

But future heirs may not be so lucky. The federal estate tax is scheduled to return with a vengeance on Jan. 1, 2011, imposing a levy of up to 55% on estates valued at more than $1 million. And the same congressional paralysis that allowed the tax to expire in 2010 could thwart efforts to pare it back, estate planning attorneys say.

A $1 million exemption would affect a lot of families that are well out of Steinbrenner's league. "You take a home, an IRA or 401(k) retirement account, some other savings and you get to $1 million pretty easily," says Richard Behrendt, senior estate planner for Robert W. Baird and a former IRS attorney.

ESCAPING ESTATE TAX: Famous folk who have died this year

Families who live in areas with high property values are particularly vulnerable, says Clint Stretch, tax principal for Deloitte Tax who lives outside Washington, D.C. "People in my neighborhood bought a house for $32,000 in the '60s, and now it's worth $1 million," he says. "If they've got anything else, they would be paying an estate tax."

And for truly wealthy families, estate taxes could influence life-or-death decisions. But more on that later.

Congressional inaction

The roots of the estate tax disarray date back to 2001, when Congress voted to gradually raise the estate tax exemption while cutting income tax rates. The phase-out ended in repeal of the tax in 2010. But like the Bush administration's income tax cuts, the reduction in the estate tax is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

Right up until the end of 2009, most estate tax attorneys expected Congress to step in and reinstate the tax. That didn't happen — raising doubts about whether Congress can agree on a fix that will prevent a more punitive tax from rising from the grave in 2011.

"Nine years ago I would have told you there was no chance we would have a year of repeal and no chance we would go back to the $1 million exemption," says Beth Kaufman, a partner with Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, D.C., and former associate tax legislative counsel for Treasury's Office of Tax Policy. "Now that we've gotten to the year of repeal, it's hard to say that something is impossible anymore."

Historically, wealthy individuals have used a variety of strategies to mitigate estate taxes, including giving away a large portion of their wealth while they're still alive. Individuals can give their children, relatives and others up to $1 million during their lifetimes without incurring federal gift taxes, Kaufman says. In addition, individuals can give away an annual amount without reducing their exemption for gift or estate taxes. In 2010, the annual gift tax exclusion is $13,000 per recipient and individuals can give away that amount to as many people as they want. Many wealthy families also reduce the size of their taxable estates by giving money and other assets to charity.

But those strategies aren't practical for families who have most of their wealth tied up in their primary residences and retirement savings, Kaufman says. "You're not going to give away your house, because you're living in it," she says. Taking withdrawals from retirement plans will trigger income taxes, plus a 10% penalty if the plan owner is under 59½.

Proposed fixes

The Obama administration has proposed returning the estate tax to its 2009 level, with a $3.5 million exemption and a 45% rate on assets that exceed that amount. The House approved the administration's proposal last year, but Republican opponents blocked action in the Senate.

Last week Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., re-introduced legislation that would exempt up to $5 million from estate taxes and impose a 35% tax rate on assets that exceed that amount.

"In just six short months, American taxpayers will face the largest tax hike in history unless Congress acts," Lincoln said in a statement. "It is estimated that more than a half-million American families will pay the estate tax over the next decade, and the lack of congressional action creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty for these families, small-business owners and farmers."

But political partisanship has made compromise increasingly difficult, says Melissa Montgomery-Fitzsimmons, director of wealth planning for First Western Trust Bank in Denver. "Given the fact that we're in an election year, the most likely thing to happen is that the laws will not change, and we will go back to $1 million of exemption and a 55% rate," she says.

Plus, reinstating the estate tax with a lower exemption would provide lawmakers with a back-door way to raise revenue, says Jason Smolen, an estate tax attorney at SmolenPlevy of Vienna, Va. "If you could do nothing and get more money, it's better than voting to raise taxes to get more money," he says.

Stretch is more optimistic that Congress will resolve the issue before the end of the year. He believes an estate tax with a higher threshold than $1 million — possibly somewhere between the one in the House-passed bill and the one proposed by Kyl and Lincoln — will be included in legislation preventing the middle-class tax cuts from expiring.

That legislation has real urgency, because without it, millions of middle-class Americans will see their taxes go up on Jan. 1, Stretch says. The higher taxes "would come out of people's paychecks almost immediately," he says. "If there's any sanity left in our political system, it will take care of middle-class tax cuts before January and at that moment in time they'll take care of estate tax."

Stretch says there's a good chance the House will extend the middle-class tax cuts and address the estate tax before the midterm elections, possibly as early as this month. But the Senate probably won't take up the issue until after the elections, he says.

Retroactive tax unlikely

In the meantime, the list of wealthy estates that will escape federal estate taxes will no doubt continue to grow. In addition to Steinbrenner, families of real estate magnate Walter Shorenstein, Texas pipeline tycoon Dan Duncan and Taco Bell founder Glen Bell will not have to worry about federal estate taxes. J.D. Salinger's heirs will also get a tax break, although establishing the value of the reclusive author's estate could take years.

"If there's ever a good time to die, 2010 is certainly it for the wealthy individual," Kaufman says.

Shortly after the estate tax expired, there was widespread speculation that Congress would reinstate it and make the tax retroactive to the beginning of 2010. But even if Congress agrees on an estate tax fix, it's unlikely lawmakers will be able to make it retroactive, Behrendt says. Families of billionaires who have died this year have the money and wherewithal to fight the tax all the way to the Supreme Court, he says.

"At some point, it becomes impractical to bring it (estate tax) back," Behrendt says. "George Steinbrenner's death in mid-July really underscores that reality."

Life-or-death tax implications

As repeal of the estate tax loomed at the end of 2009, wealthy families had an incentive to keep ailing parents or grandparents alive until Jan. 1. This year, in what sounds like an episode of Law & Order, heirs stand to benefit if wealthy benefactors die before midnight on Dec. 31. While outright homicide seems unlikely, estate-planning attorneys say they can envision situations in which the prospect of onerous estate taxes influences family members' decision to discontinue a relative's life support.

It could also cause some wealthy people with terminal illnesses to hasten their own demise, Behrendt says. "The fact is that our tax laws are influencing people's decision to live or die."