As everyone knows, Europe is facing a recession coming from the sovereign debt crisis and the continued credit crunch, as well as the lack of fiscal coordination. Central and Eastern Europe will experience real economic downturn on the consumer side. Many economists such as Gary Shilling and Nouriel Roubini expect major bank failures in 2012. Meanwhile fiscal austerity will turn a mild recession into a severe one.

The US should remain cautious as 27% of its financial exposure comes from the Eurozone. Private and public sector deleveraging has only just begun, consumer have yet to start saving, which is the prologue for increasing consumption or demand. Excess capacity remains high due to overinvestment in many countries, particularly manufacturing investments in China, making companies reluctant to take out cash for necessary capital spending and hiring. Unemployment and rising inequality reduces aggregate demand and pushes the world into social and political unrest, posing additional economic risks. Policymakers are running out of options: monetary policy has become ineffective, developed countries are no longer facing liquidity problems but more of solvency concerns. Although we have seen a drop in unemployment rate to 8.3% and positive growth in non-farm jobs in the January employment report, the tally does not include discouraged workers or part time workers who are looking for full-time jobs. Also in January, job cuts grew to 28%. If many key tax benefits and stimulus programs are allowed to expire as government seeks fiscal austerity measures, we could be looking at a 9.2% unemployment rate with a GDP growth of 1.1% in 2013. Political procrastination will continue to cause instability as we move further into 2012. Inadequate fiscal policy in the US could derail the recovery, and the failure of the Supercomittee to find a solution to the US deficit will bring major automatic spending cuts that will eliminate the prospects of a true recovery in 2013. In addition, as Bill Gross of Pimco pointed out, economic growth has been heavily dependent on the growth of credit; therefore recovery of the global economy seems difficult given a zero interest rate environment, which hinders credit-fueled growth. So far, we have not seen any major restructuring programs put in place that will encourage real structural economic growth, and with no credit, we are not likely to see any soon.

Although many look to China for the solution, China’s economy could be in trouble as well. Falling property prices and the waning construction boom will have negative impact on investments and government revenue. The weakening of the Eurozone and US economy causes decreasing net exports while domestic demand in China has not proven strong enough to make up for the amount of exports lost. The soft landing that we hope for may be difficult to achieve given the speed of the chain reaction and the extent of its impact. Even if a soft landing is achieved, the Chinese economy may become too soft to recover. Japan’s weak government actions and failure to implement strong structural reforms will hinder recovery and growth. Latin America as well as China will be exposed to lower commodity prices while political turmoil in the Middle East causing high oil prices will continue to limit global economic growth. A measly 3% growth is expected for the global economy in 2012. Although the chance of an Israeli strike is predicted to be 25%, oil prices could rise to $300 per barrel, which could stop global recovery and growth altogether if not cause a more devastating recession.

Having given my argument for a bearish outlook on the global economy in 2012, many may ask why have we seen a market rally up until now. There may be several reasons. Institutional investors tend to put their cash to use during the beginning of each calendar year.
Investors may be switching out of emerging and European markets and into US financial assets for safety. Expectations may also be high among investors that QE3 will be put in place later this year. Either way, the rally in the stock market that we been looking at lately may only be a temporary phenomenon, and the bullish sentiment may only be a reflection of no more than a strand of hope for a new start.

Beni Fisch | The Bull & Bear

Beni Fisch analyzes the impacts of tuition hikes on enrollment

If there’s one thing that I’ve learned over my twenty years of existence is that anything that advertises itself as “the truth” should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Less than a week ago on Tuesday (7 February) a number of students from different Québec universities began what could be a prolonged general strike against the Charest government’s planned tuition hikes. According to the plan, announced in last year’s Québec budget, tuition in the province is set to go up by $325 per year over the next five years, resulting in a total increase of $1,625.

Tuition fees in Québec have remained frozen for the greater part of the past 44 years, despite an accumulated inflation rate of 667.8% during the period (an average of 4.41% per year). By 2016, students in the province are due to pay $3,793 for a year of full-time studies, up from the current $2,148. Not only will this new value still be by far the lowest in Canada, but it will in fact simply bring the real tuition rate (that is, the value adjusted to inflation) back to 1968 levels.

The backlash against the plan has been led by the Coalition large de l’Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (CLASSE), a temporary coalition of students unions created to fight the hikes. CLASSE claims that around 10,000 students from the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM ) and Université Laval already joined the strike last Tuesday, and around 20,000 others could join in the next two weeks. Strike votes are set to be held soon by the students unions of almost every university and CÉGEP in the province.

As the strike goes into full gear, CLASSE legitimates its actions by pointing to information contained in the website Tuition Truth. The page cites the results of a study which suggest that some 30,000 students from lower-income families in the province would be prevented from obtaining a university education should tuition go up as planned. The page further mentions that, while tuition rates in the rest of Canada are higher, other countries such as France and Brazil have free tuition. As a Brazilian national, I can attest to the fact that the system is very flawed and reality much more complicated than that – but that’s the subject for a whole different article. Put it shortly, what tends to happen in both cases is that most government funding will go to a handful of top-tier schools (referred to in France as the Grandes Écoles), while the remainder of schools suffer from severe underfunding and tight budgeting constraints.

What is more concerning about the study, however, is that its results do not seem to correspond to the reality of similar experiences in other provinces. Results of a recent study conducted by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) – a Winnipeg-based independent think-tank – point to a very different scenario. The study sought to answer two basic questions:

- Are university participation rates higher in the low-tuition provinces than in the higher-tuition provinces?

- Are university participation rates for young people from low-income families higher in the low-tuition provinces than in the higher-tuition provinces?

The answers to both questions are a resounding “no”.

A quick look at the two charts above reveals that Nova Scotia and Ontario, the two provinces with the highest average undergraduate tuition rates, also boast the second and fifth largest university participation rates, respectively. Québec on the other hand – despite an average tuition which stands at a meager 46.5% of the national average of $3,996.40 – is third-last in the country in terms of undergraduate attendance. University participation in the province stands at 40.5%, lagging over three percentage points behind the national average of 43.9%.

One could argue that these numbers are skewed by a greater number of wealthy students who are more willing to attend university in higher-tuition provinces, at the expense of lower-income individuals who may be discouraged to pursue post-secondary studies because of the perceived prohibitive costs. The study, once again, points to a different reality.

This time around, the results are even more surprising. Nova Scotia and Ontario (which, as we have seen, have the two highest average tuition rates in the country) both stand nationally in first and second place, respectively, in terms of university participation rates for lower-income students (defined by the study to be those in the bottom 25 percentile of the population). Québec once again shows an abysmal performance: only 30.6% of its lower-income high school graduates attend university, a full six percentage points behind the national average of 36.6%.

Two other interesting results of the study are found in the following charts:

Not only do we fail to observe an inverse relationship between higher tuition and university participation, but if anything the study finds that there seems to be a positive (albeit imperfect) correlation between the two variables. Put it simply, the line of best fit indicates that university participation rates tend to go up as tuition increases. The second chart in turn points to the fact that the gap between university attendance for higher and lower-income students tends to be smaller in high-tuition provinces than in provinces like Québec, which boast very low tuition.

The authors of the study are careful to point to the fact that these findings do not necessarily indicate a direct causal link between higher tuition and higher participation rates in university. They do, however, indicate that tuition fees are but one of many variables that come into play when one weighs in the pros and cons of pursuing a university degree. Other (probably more important) factors involve opportunity costs related to the time spent studying (and therefore outside of the workforce) and the potential for greater future income; geographical proximity to a university; the existence of high-paying jobs that do not require a university degree (such as in Alberta’s oil industry); amongst many others.

Another consideration is that higher tuition rates may result in greater capacity for universities to distribute financial aid (something most left-wingers should appreciate as essentially a transfer of wealth from higher-income students, who have no problem paying full tuition, to those who are less privileged). A personal anecdote seems to exemplify this well: having been admitted to both McGill and the University of Toronto, the latter immediately granted me a $5,000 bursary. McGill – with the severe budgeting constraints that come with Québec’s lower tuition – gave me nothing beyond a welcome letter. Indeed, experiences from several high school friends who received $3,000, $4,000, and even full rides of up to $21,000 from several Ontario universities seem to indicate that these schools are far more generous in terms of granting financial aid than their counterparts in Québec. (Full disclosure: those numbers come from personal interactions, as I have been unable to find broader statistics on this specific subject.)

Let me be very clear: I am not trying to suggest that Québec should pursue an American-style system of university funding, whereby most schools are entirely self-funded through tuitions that reach the $40,000 – 50,000 range. Indeed, the authors of the FCPP study do point to the fact that, at that high a level, a correlation does seem to exist between higher tuition and lower accessibility. What these findings do suggest, however, is that within the context of Canada’s highly-subsidized and very low-tuition universities, this correlation seems to be a false one. Indeed, higher tuition rates – whether because of resulting better infrastructure, hirings of internationally-renowned faculty, more financial aid, or other factors – seem to be correlated with a higher desire to obtain a university degree.

That is why I am not only in favour of the Charest government’s tuition hikes, but also satisfied with my initial (and seemingly well-justified) scepticism of the phrase “Tuition Truth”.

Siddarth Mishra

However, the economy cooled down to the estimated level of 3% growth last year. This was mostly attributed to the raising of interest rates early in the year and the spread of the European Debt crisis. As a reaction to this slowdown, the Central Bank has cut the benchmark interest rate from 12.5% to 10.5% in the past 6 months. Analysts expect the central bank to continue this trend and further cut interest rates to a minimum of 9%. Further policy measures to boost the economy include reducing taxes on key consumer goods and reducing restrictions on foreign capital investments in equities.

These policies call into question the Central Bank’s commitment to controlling inflation. Since 2005, the Central Bank has had a target inflation rate of 4.5% plus or minus two percentage points. Yet, in August 2011, when the inflation rate was at 6.9%, the bank cut the interest rate by 50 basis points. While analysts expect these policy changes to boost the GDP growth rate to 3.3% this year, they also believe that the inflation rate will stay well above the target level at around 5.3% despite the recent trend of decrease in inflation levels. The Brazilian Central Bank, however, is more optimistic. Central bank President Alexandre Tombini has pledged to slow consumer price rises to the 4.5 percent midpoint of the target range this year. The economy’s recent “below potential” growth has opened up space for further interest rate cuts without stoking inflation, Tombini said earlier this month. The bank also defended its monetary policy by arguing that inflation over the past year was boosted by one-off factors, such as big rises in municipal bus fares and a shortage of ethanol (widely used as vehicle fuel in Brazil).

Brazil’s well documented battle against inflation in the 80s and early 90s resulted in the autonomy of the Central Bank and a monetary policy that targeted inflation. However, recent indications suggest that the Central bank, perhaps influenced by the government, is giving priority to sustaining growth and controlling the value of its currency over inflation targeting. If the problem persists, it could become a political pitfall for Ms. Roussef’s government. The lowest inflation rate during her regime has been 5.99%. For a country that has battled hyperinflation in the past, a regime that cannot achieve its inflation target will be criticized, no matter what the growth rate is.

Quantitative easing has its merits and the Central Bank has a right to be concerned about stagnating growth levels. But when prices are soaring, the logic behind such aggressive monetary policies have to be questioned. The Central bank’s forecasts for inflation (4.5%) and growth rate (4%) for 2012 are optimistic to say the least. However, not meeting these forecasts could be politically dangerous for the government.

Gage Skidmore (Flickr)

Congressman Paul's insights bear more relevance than petty fights about income tax rates

Largely seen as a champion of libertarian capitalism, a somewhat fringe political and economic philosophy, it would seem that a candidate so far from center would have an extremely difficult time gaining popular support. But, as we have come to realize, these aren’t like most times. The financial crisis (predicted in full by congressman Paul five years prior to its fruition) has cast some perceptions of economics and the role of the government into uneasy doubt. This uncertainty and frustration has thus been a catalyst for Congressman Paul to build a base of support, particularly amongst youth who recognize that the changes needed to drive positive economic and social change have not been made.

Like most Republican candidates, the congressman from Texas is running on a platform of changing the economic and monetary “status quo.” His most enticing stance, however, is his non-interventionist military policy. As he rightly, and ferociously, argues, the US has no obligation whatsoever to police the world and, furthermore, simply cannot afford to do so. With a national debt of fourteen trillion dollars and rising, the half-a-trillion-dollar-a-year military budget is crippling the national economy. Paying absurd amounts of money to keep bases in Germany, Japan and other countries that have long been in peaceful states is a ludicrous notion and one that is an undeniable burden to economic recovery. Fighting expensive and unwinnable wars overseas drains both resources and tarnishes reputations. Instead, Ron Paul argues in favor of national defense, meaning the defense of the nation from invaders, not occupying other sovereign states. As such, these views, along with the promise to bring the troops home, have earned Paul the support of the US Army, Navy and Air Force, who make up the greatest proportion of non-individual campaign contributions. While some would argue that the defense budget is justified in protecting US national security, Congressman Paul’s plan to bring all overseas troops back to US soil will result in a far more effective end: the largest and most advanced military trimming its mandate down to singularly protecting American lives from invaders – a move that seems far more effective and positive for “homeland security.”

Critics of the Texan congressman often hear the terms “free market solutions” and “small government” associated with the Paul campaign and immediately assume that he intends to outlaw all welfare and government social programs. However, as a student of the constitution, Congressman Paul believes that it is in fact the state’s prerogative to determine the presence and degree of welfare. States create their own laws based on certain values that are prevalent in that state, affording citizens an escape from overarching laws legislated by a disconnected federal government.

One example of Paul’s proposed free-market solution is one that may hit closest to home for students: student loans. Federally backed student loans take taxes from laborers and people who never went to college and uses them to send other people to college. Furthermore, the ease with which federal loans can be acquired is a catalyst for price hikes in the education system. Paul believes that removing the federal bureaucratic involvement will cause prices to fall and quality to rise in a free market, absolving students of their often crushing student loans that are still being paid off decades into the future. In the US, student loans have become such an oppressive burden that even one who files for bankruptcy may not necessarily be discharged of the student loans. A truly freedom-strangling debt indeed.

A central message presented by Congressman Paul – one that has resonated with a growing number of supporters (both Republican and Democrat) – is the sanctity of individual freedom. When asked in an interview what the role of government should be, Paul succinctly replied, “Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.” In the era of financial crises, rising inflation, an out of control defense budget and the Patriot Act, Paul’s views are becoming increasingly attractive to the American population. If it really is time for a change – and indeed it is – Dr. Ron Paul is the man to be seriously considered for the job.

Jean Moirez | The Bull & Bear

Current MUS President Dave Fortin hands over the torch to MUS President-Elect Francisco Barrioolivas

MUS PRESIDENT: Francisco Barrio Olivas (52.8%), Kyra Azzopardi (22.6%), Alex Pajusi (21.2%), No Opinion (3.5%)

FINANCE/HONOURS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT REP: Marc Brunet (34.7%), Alex Szikla (28.6%), Hayden Evans (27.8%), No Opinion (9.0%)

INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT/ INT’L BUSINESS REP: Veronica Dasovich (64.5%), Sheil Khanna (25.2%), No Opinion (10.3%)

ENTREPRENEURSHIP/STRATEGY REP: Chris Conery (acclaimed)

INFO SYSTEMS/OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT REP: John Kim (46.8%), Kapil Mehra (44.7%), No Opinion (8.5%)

LABOUR MANAGEMENT/OB/PSYCH REP: Christine Yang (acclaimed)

MATH/STATS REP: Emerson Shiu (acclaimed)

REP TO SSMU: Meredith Drieseberg (44.0%), Fadi Tleel (28.8%), No Opinion (27.2%)

Update:

MARKETING REP: Tom Acker (57.6%), Olivia Hoskin (35.6%), Muhammad Ali (Withdrawn, 5.1%), No Opinion (1.7%)

ACCOUNTING REP: David Stein (acclaimed), Brandon Brisbois (disqualified)

ECONOMICS REP: Karishma Joseph (22.0%, the current BoD met in camera on Feb. 15th to tiebreak in accordance with the MUS Constitution), Joaquim Miro (22.0%), Younjei Abraham Chung (19.5%), Wahaaj Ud Din (17.1%), Han Wang (14.6%), No Opinion (4.9%)

Victor Zhu

The Sea of Galilee is one of the exotic locations that students going on the Israel tour will have the privilege of visiting

As part of McGill’s “5 Hot Cities of The World Tour”; thirty MBA and undergraduate students will be traveling to South Africa and meeting with government officials, business executives and community leaders as they visit the beautiful cities of Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth.

Students traveling to South Africa will receive 3 credits for the ten-day trip, which includes mandatory pre-departure assignments and a final reflection paper upon their return.

Bronfmanites heading to the Rainbow Country have also added a philanthropic twist to their experience. For the second consecutive year, students participating in the Hot Cities Of The World tour have launched a very ambitious fundraising goal of $20,000. They intend to reach their objective by leveraging a variety of social media tools over the course of their 10-day excursion. The proceeds will be given to the Ubuntu Education Fund, a community institution in Port Elizabeth that supports vulnerable children along the pathway out of poverty by providing essential health and educational services.

When International Business major, Chase Potter, returned to McGill from an unforgettable internship in Israel this past summer, he was baffled by how few investment-savvy students knew so little of their global surroundings. Known for having the highest number of high-tech start-ups per capita, the small country of 7 million people attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined while Tel Aviv has rapidly become one of the world’s most vibrant entrepreneurial hot spots.

Following his experience in Israel, Chase then reached out to Kyra Azzopardi, MUS VP Academic, who was convinced that a reading week trip to Israel was an absolute must after having read Dan Senor’s Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle. In the past months, both have been tirelessly invested in the various planning stages of Israel Business Connection (IBC) and trust that this trip will expose the eighteen lucky participants to Israel’s unique entrepreneurial climate, culture and history in an action-packed 9 days.

Currently in its fourth year of operation, the Hot Cities tour takes learning outside the classroom and exposes students to a broader range of experiences and applications. Succinctly described by Professor Karl Moore on the Hot Cities blog, “too often of my generation flew business class, lectured emerging economies about the theory of markets, and then flew back home.” As such, the program seeks to bridge the gap between the rigorous academic learning students engage in and the real-world dilemmas that exist outside Bronfman classrooms. The two Reading Week trips also demonstrate Desautels’ longstanding global outlook.

One piece of advice for all those traveling during reading week: don’t bother bringing any books!

(Want to help? Check out this website).

Wall Street Journal

A bank’s deal volume is the sum of the prices paid by the acquirer on all M&A deals the bank advised on. While league tables could be used to compare and gauge investment banks’ M&A activity and performance, they also serve as a good basis for bragging rights.

These are the international league tables for the calendar year ending December 31st 2011.

Henri-Luc Carlin | The Bull & Bear

While the 2012 figures do not necessarily reflect on this year’s deal flow, as the year has just begun, it remains encouraging for the Canadian Financial Markets to see two Canadian banks placing in the top 20 so far, TD Securities and Scotia Capital. This can mostly be explained by the $3.96B Pembina – Provident deal that both firms advised on, which gave them a solid lead early in the year.

Year-to-date, the dollar volume of transactions is up by 78.32% relative to deal flow in 2011’s fourth quarter. Hopefully we will witness a recovery of the EU and American economies in 2012, which could translate to a sustainable increase in global M&A activity across the board- positive news for all of us eager finance interns.

Madeline Richards - madelinerichards.com

The Judicial Board ruled to invalidate QPIRG's referendum question.

The final judgement is as follows:

1) Invalidate QPIRG-M’s referendum question on the grounds that it deals with two issues, instead of one as required by the Constitution.

2) Uphold the respondent’s decisions with respect to her supervisory role of the fall 2011 referendum period.

The referendum period ran from November 4, 2011, to November 10, 2011. During this time, 5245, about 25%, of all students participated in the voting. Of these students, 65% voted in favour of QPIRG’s question. On November 11, Zach Newburgh and Brendan Steven (the petitioners) filed an appeal challenging QPIRG’s referendum question. On December 7, the Judicial Board agreed to hear the case.

The Judicial Board addressed two principle issues: the validity of QPIRG’s referendum question pursuant to ss. 25.2 and 25.3 of the SSMU Constitution and whether or not Rebecca Tacoma, CEO of SSMU Elections, fulfilled her role with due diligence.

The Judicial Board did not agree with the respondents’ and interveners’ argument that the petitioners had a motive of “bad faith,” for two reasons. First, the referendum question must be objectively constitutional, “regardless of who poses it and who opposes it.” Second, since this case is in large part public law challenge of a referendum question, the Judicial Board ruled that “it matters not in law whether complainants act with a specific personal underlying belief.”

The QPIRG referendum question was as follows:

Do you support QPIRG continuing as a recognized student activity supported by a fee of $3.75 per
semester for undergraduate students, which is not opt-outable on the Minerva online opt-out
system but is instead fully refundable directly through QPIRG, with the understanding that a
majority “no” vote will result in the termination of all undergraduate feel-levy funding to
QPIRG?

This question failed to ask the constituent to vote on only one issue, a rule referred to as the “single-subject rule”. The petitioners suggested that the question posed a “philosophical overlap” and that the “referendum questions are abusive if a majority of students voting ‘yes’ to only one of [the] proposals but will vote ‘yes’ to ensure the execution of that one proposal.”

Upon failing the “philosophical overlap” test, the QPIRG referendum question was deemed “abusive” by the Judicial Board. The Judicial Board sought to protect s. 25.2 of the SSMU Constitution, which states that, “A voter feeling compelled to vote in favour of one of the issues to ensure the passing of the proposal connected to that issue, even if he/she may wish to vote against another issue raised by the referendum question.”

Regarding the role of Tacoma, the Judicial Board rejected the petitioners’ claims that she did not fulfill her duties with due diligence, citing that “The CEO seems to have conducted herself in forthright and commendable manner throughout the referendum period.”

The Judicial Board’s decision to invalidate the QPIRG referendum could possibly still be overturned by the SSMU Board of Directors by a four-fifths majority vote. This is because of proposed SSMU Constitutional changes which would, if implemented, change the Constitution to make it necessary for Judicial Board decisions to be ratified by the Board of Directors before they become binding.

Update (February 15) – In a press release, Newburgh and Steven expressed their satisfaction with the Judicial Board’s decision. “The verdict reaffirmed the important constitutional requirement that all referenda must deal with only one issue. Such a requirement ensures that members of the Students’ Society of McGill University (“SSMU”) can vote decisively on matters important to them and to our community.”

Newburgh and Steven hope that the Board of Directors will ratify the Judicial Board’s decision. “We call on the Board to respect the principles of natural justice and due process by affirming the decision outlined in the verdict. The integrity of the SSMU’s referendum process demands it.”

Michael Horowitz

Not all Romantic Romeos win their Juliets

At an age when the male species was highly concerned with the propagation of the utterly terrifying “cooties” disease, if a boy didn’t run away petrified at the sight of me, it was a clear sign that we were meant to be. Pulling each other’s hair was flirting, sharing a shovel was the equivalent of an engagement ring and a peck on the cheek was the indication of an earth-shattering romance comparable to that of Barbie and Ken (pre-divorce, obviously).

That phase of my life, however sweet, was brief, and I soon found myself a young adult faced with relationship complications more incomprehensible than quantum physics for an arts student. Romantic labels multiplied at a scary pace ranging from one night stands to spouses, and I soon discovered the dreaded grey area of all male/female interaction: the friend zone.

Admittedly, like most of you, I have been relegated to the friend zone on occasion and have come to equate it with a black hole – easy to fall into and impossible to return from. But on this two-way street, I have done my share of condemning interested guys to platonic sentences. And so my Valentine’s Day gift to you, men of McGill, is a breakdown of why you might be eligible for the coveted position of “just a friend.”

Now although most women are too proud to admit this for fear of appearing shallow (we like to think our moral standards are better than yours), you simply may not be high enough on the hotness scale. While we are less inclined to judge based solely on appearance, physical attraction remains important, especially when creating that first impression upon meeting someone new. In fact, many of us are not above the pettiness of having a specific “type.” However, do not fool yourselves into believing that this is some kind of vague, transformable notion – our idea of a perfect man is not like sticky putty, it’s more like Mount Rushmore; detailed and carved in stone.

The good news about the female species, however, is that we often recognize how insanely unattainable our standards are and are willing to compromise. Therefore, if you don’t have David Beckam’s body (thank you, H&M, for the new underwear ad) or Channing Tatum’s amazing jawline, there is still hope that she could soon use you as her personal human jungle gym on a daily basis.

Your focus needs to be directed towards the mysterious attribute that is charm to win her over. While the concept is broader than the Pacific Ocean, it essentially boils down to a mix of humour, wit and confidence, with heavy emphasis on that last quality. Being funny and able to carry an interesting conversation will catch her attention, but the final verdict of whether or not you are the man for her will be based on how assertive you are.

While generalizing in this instance may get me in trouble with some of our female readers, the truth is that almost all of us have an internal desire for a “bad boy” that will become a good man upon falling in love (yes, we do think we are special enough to warrant a complete personality alteration). Upon closer inspection, however, it is quite evident that the trait we are truly seeking is the carefree confidence that this segment of the male population exhibits, and not the dangerous and mysterious packaging they come in.

So, at the end of it all, there are three key rules to avoid the friend zone. First, do not become her doormat because you like her. Second, make your intentions very clear – as in open your mouth and speak the words “I’d like to take you out.” Finally, and most importantly, value yourself. As I like to remind my own male friends, each of you have great things to contribute to a relationship, the trick is knowing how to emphasize the qualities that make you a desirable man. It’s all about the pitch and how you market your attributes. If you need a reference, Don Draper is a good place to start.

My last piece of advice concerns that defining make-or-break moment in determining the nature of your relationship: Don’t chicken out. Excuse the bluntness, but you are a capable man so take control of the situation already and kiss her. What, are you waiting for a formal request? A relationship isn’t like running for President; declarations of intent need not be made in a hall full of people. There’s no greater thrill than a passionate first kiss that will catch her completely off guard. So go for it! In this case, fortune favours the bold and hesitation means the battle is already lost. So, when thinking tactical strategy, think preemption and the element of surprise.