Jerry_Atrick

Hi Jeff, and welcome to the forums. This is an area that has kept me employed for some time, now.. The regulations have tightened in three main ways; 1) there are far stronger data control requirements in risk management as a function. This was something that was wanting, which I could not believe when I entered the industry; 2) There are stronger regulatory requirments in tterms of the risk management that must be performed and goverrned within the firm and violations in responsible jurisdictions can meant loss of licence for the company and jail time for those responsble - look up the senior managers regime. In addition, the types of risks that have to be monitored have expanded signinfcantly. Thirdly, the amount of regulatory capital that has to be held against riskier products makes them almost uneconomic unless the firm has enought volume in those products. Most European banks are moving away from equity derivatives and exotics (complex non-linear products), because the regulatory capital (money or money like instruments) that must be held to cover the losses are steep, and that is captial that can't be deployed to make momney. And regulators in responsible jurisdictions are no longer light-touch.. as it was in the UK.. leave a huge money makling industry to more or less regulate itself and guess what happens? Actually, this is where Australia shone because they were never light touch.. and Aussie banks fared reasonably well in the crisis. Running internal models to optimise risk is no longer approved over a quick bite at lunch. There are still systemic risks in the indistry - some that are hard to predict. For example, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank was a mis-managed portfolio; they were overweight on US Treasuries and Notes, which are considered risk free. Normally cocentration risk limits should have kicked in, but this was considered a prudent holding at the time. The problem was they were slow to see the signs of rising interest rates, and that meant the US treasuries especially that they held dropped in market value as the rates rose and new treausries and notes were being issued at higher rates. This normally wouldn't have been a huge issue, however, SVB were using these holding to fund daily liquidity requirements. With theie outflows increasing thanks to rates, their inflows from andy money markets deposits or any varioable rate credit loans was not enough to cover the gap, and eventually the money would run out. Of curse, a run didn't help them. The other risks are more macro in nature; The level of sovereign and personal/corporate debt is very high across teh world. The equities markets seem to be valuing companies at well above their historical intrinsic value. Apple has a P/E ratio of 27; Tesla 32 (after touching 300); a good long term P/E ratio historically is about 12 - 15:1. This may well be the new norm since much more of the population is investing via super/pensions, etfs, etc... there is more cash to splash and with more demand and equal supply, the cost is going to go up. The world seems to have, at the moment, survived a macro scare... but there are more bumps to come. We have to run stress tests on a monthly basis taking into account all manner of scenarios and ensure that we have the capital to withstand the worst stress. That, too is a regulatory requirement. Having said that, any risk management function is only as good as a) its data; b) its systems; and c) its management buy in at the top. There are plenty of examples of where the latter was comromised and it all eventually ended in tears.

Things are starting to move on the reno front. Have just ordered a large skip for 4 weeks. It arrives on Friday and we start work ripping out kitchen and other fixtures which are to go, as well as damaged plaster and general junk. We have foudn asbestos on the property in sheets; Have moved it to a safe place and will get the council in to dispose of it. The kitchen looks OK in the above shot, but it is old, hardly any drawers work, it ha marks all over it; The bean in the foreground will be replaced with a wider and shallow bean and will extend to beyond the doorway you can see in the left foreground. We may be able to get the steel level with the ceiling. The ceiling is shot, but rather than rip it out and re=plaster, it will be battened, plaster boarded and skimmed. Am just ordering the flooring (engineered oak) and carpets for up stairs. Have ordered built in wardrobes and storage shelves. Today, all the central (hydronic) heating radiators have been removed by the plumbers.. just as the weather cooled a bit, too.. So we are again without heating, but I am pretty happy about that. We have to get some remedial work on the walls done and then paint the areas of the radiators as we managed to scoop buy three-column neutral cast iron radiators at a good discount (partner had been researching and found someone doing a closing down sale) The walls themselves have a bit of work to be done, and as it is lime plaster, we are looking at brining in a specialist: Skip arrives on Friday for 4 weeks.. Lots will be happening between from then. When we are done, we are going to sell the place. It is too big for us. We will buy something back in London and look for something in Melbourne.

I am going to post into the reno thread, but things are moving qickly now... Which means, hopefully around 6 - 9 months and I will be Australia bound (I know.. I have been planning this for years, but it is finally coming ot fruition. As we are likely to be located in the inner burbs of Mlebourne, our intention is not to buy a car, but use public transport and bicycles where we can; At $10.50 a pop, we intend to use the regional trains to go places; and would like to use the interstate trains for interstate stuff. If we need to use a car, we'll hire one.. We'll see how far we get without one. The plan was to fly out of Essendon as it is a tram and 10 minute walk to the terminal building. But it doesn't look like there are any non-commercial schools that hireplanes to private flyers, so may have to reonsider that idea. Moorabbin can be go to by taking a train, I think it is to Mentone or Cheltenham or somewhere like that, and then a rather (in those days) unreliable bus towards Dingley. But, my brother has a spare car that I can borrow to get to Moorabbin (not sure it would go much further than that).

Yes.. technically the state doesn't own the allocation of resources - but technically neither does China to the extend of , but to assert China is not a communist country would be folly. Putin has been exerting state control over major enterprises.. doesn't like what someone does or how they do it, they fall out of a window and the state either takes control or he installs his puppets... If it looks like communism, and it smells like communism, it probably is communism.

@octave, let us know how the train ride goes.

I am not sure this is a true account of history. After engaging in a debate on here, I decided to do some research. The problem I fear with this subject is that it doesn't matter who writes about it, there is a bias.. For some reason, a conflict which is small in population, has little impact economically and for resources, is in a region which has been volatile for centuries gets disproportionate attention. Do not get me wrong; I am not saying that this should be ignored or anything like that; and sadly civilians are killed. But how many civilian Palestinians have been killed since, let's say 1920 as that what Messrs Google and Wikipedia dished up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_war + https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/more-than-29000-palestinians-have-been-killed-in-gaza-since-wars-start-health-ministry-says#:~:text=The Health Ministry said 107,the start of the war.) gives about 104,403. I used the higher numbers in the first post and rounded up the tally of deaths in the current conflict to 30,000. It may be more by now. So, in a hundred years, an average of c. 1,000 deaths a year, but of course the current conflict is about 32% of the total, so an average is not much use. But, in 6 months, we are 30,000 down; let's apply a linear extrapolation and say 60,000 in a year. Before that, in 100 years there were 74,000 deaths, or an average of 740 per year. In the Yemen war which started out in 2014, 150,000 civilians have been killed and a further 225,00 have died by famine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_civil_war_(2014–present)#:~:text=According to the UN%2C over,facilities due to the war.). This is an average of 37,500 per year dying as a result of the war . Taking out the current war in Gaza, for around 9 years, the Yemen conflict has resulted in over 50 times the deaths than in Gaza, on average, but I don't recall hearing too much about the plight of the Yemeni civilians in that war. Yet any skirmish in Palestine was immediately big news in that period. Nor do I recall the level of global civilian outrage and protests that we have seen for Palestine. Again, I am not saying he Palestinians should not be forgotten or discarded. But, my spidey senses tell me that reporting, and to be honest, society is not being terribly objective. In Syria, it has been 306,000 civilian deaths in the war currently running since 2011. That's an average of 23,538 per year, which is 33 times the Palestinian death rate before the current gaza war. There was some noise in the press about it in the beginning, but when was the last time you read or saw anything about about it - in the MSM or the social media. and where were, let alone are the protests? For some reason, I can't get the number of civilian dead in the Iran/Iraq war, but total estimated is between 1 and 2million people: https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-the-estimate-of-total-casualties-in-the-Iran-Iraq-War. That war lasted almost 8 years; let's assume 1/2 killed were civilians.. you get my drift. So, during all this time, there are masses of civilian deaths in wars in the very same region being relatively lightly covered and certainly no mass outpouring of public anger, yet the coverage for what seems to be a relatively minor war attracts global media and popular outrage. I am starting to think it is not the Palestinian thing at all. Is it a general hatred or dislike of Jews? Is it over religious ideology? I don't know, but I have to admit, I don't understand it. The war in Ukraine is a threat to at least western society and global food supply chains; yet that has taken a back seat and is hardly reported anymore, with the exception of the republicans denying aid, and the spectacular gains made, but other than that, it is all but forgotten. In terms of the holy right to clean people only, I would suspect that for the hard religious nutters - yeah that is the case. However, Australia has a growing white supremacy movement that want only a white (presumably Arian) race inhabiting the country. That does not mean the country as a whole or majority want only "clean" people (by that, I am assuming you mean only Jewish people). Likening Zionism to Nazism is like likening socialism to authoritarianism. Nazism wanted an extermination of whole races; if you can show credible evidence where the Israeli governments have wanted this (as a majority, not one rogue minister who was dismissed for his views), then I am all ears (or eyes). I have already provided evidence on these forums of Palestinian head of the Supreme Court,. Palestinians have rights to be elected in their parliament; the last government saw a Palestinian deputy PM, there is plenty of evidence that Palestinians have not attempted to be exterminated as a whole; and there is plenty of evidence that even in the Nakbah, Palestinians who were prepared to lay down their arms were welcome to stay The problem I have is that, and lets be honest, the hatred for Jews has been for so long and so extensive, that I don't take research anyone does as being objective. What doesn't seem to be disputed though, is that the Zionist Jews bought some of the land that was to become Israel in 1948. There is dispute to how much; with the Israelis saying all of it and Palestinians saying 2%; As I have said before, I suspect it is somewhere in between.. I have already spent too much time on this as I am behind on my studies; I will take a look at the series at some stage, but I would prefer from peer reviewed historical publications.... The evidence I have read from various cannot support the statement I bolded, if it means the Israeli government and military wanting to wipe out the Palestinian (primarily Bedhooin) population. In fact, the evidence points out to at least some of Israel's neighbours and Iran at least wanting to wipe Israel off the map, and that does not mean allowing civilians to live peacefully under some other rule. I would suggest you draw your information from a wider variety of sources.. I still thin Israel at the moment have well and truly overstepped the mark at the moment. Don't get me wrong.. I still believe Israel has gone too far....

Maybe you could distil the key points she makes? I was referring to the popular support he commands... as well as the fact he is far from honest... And the fact he is not an idiot as many claim because he seems to be very successful at exploitation.

George Carlin put it nicely. It went something like if the average person doesn't understand what is going on and at least 50% of the population is less than average.... well, you get the rest. It was a general reference to democracy but equally to Trump. Trump is no idiot. He knows how to tap into the psyche of the great masses. He is in no way honest though - completely misrepresents himself at so many levels. For the people? Definitely not.. Religious? Just ask him to name his favourite quote of the bible. Smart business man? Nope, but he can (or could) con banks into giving him money. Honest man? Hardly... Toiler and hard working? Hardly. If anything he is the most dishonest of the lot. But, he knows how to get the masses - and let's be honest - not the smarter part of the masses - on his side. They are usually those that feel left out, downtrodden, etc. He will blame their problems on things like aliens, "woke" and of course, the opposition. He will set up conspiracy theories for desperate people looking desperately for something or someone to blame. He has managed to con the worlds most communist fearing population into supporting a communist regime in Putin. The press is more or less divided in the US - right wing or left wing.. When he makes his outlandish claims, no one asks him to verify it because he only allows right wing press to attend the Q&A, or he simply ignores anyone willing to raise anything but dorothy dixers to him. He is a bully and I am sure he has photos of some of his ex political opponents within the republican party that now have their tongues so far up his posterior, they're tickling his tonsils. How would one explain the U turn of Lindsay Graham or Ted Cruz? Of course, it may be bullying and threats of loss of endorsement, but others don't play to Trumps fiddle as both of these men who have previously despised the man and seem him as a threat to the Republican party. Then you have enough people who will vote for the Republicans come what may... A friend of mine based in Portland, Oregon and whom I see about once every three months openly states we will vote for Trump. Back in 2016, as an ex serviceman, he couldn't vote for Clinton as apparently she said that if servicemen were stuck in theatre and it was too dangerous to rescue them, then she would not authorise the rescue. His issue was they lay their life on the line on the expectation that should the proverbial hit the fan, there would be someone coming in to get them. When I remind him of what trump thinks of the military and that he certainly can't be trusted to do the same, he overlooks it, because he thinks the policies of Trump are better in general. When I reminded him in his last visit here that their order book is flowing and the economy is motoring, he will seek anything to discredit it. He is a genuinely nice bloke that would give the shirt off his back to anyone needing help.. but he is a Republican through and through. Just like people still vote for ScoMo despite his corrupt and terrible record, because he in in the Liberal party...

Israel is in the news again. I agree with their right to defend themselves against Hamas, and that for Israel to go after cowards that hide behind civilians to wage their war, whether one thinks their cause is right or wrong, is actually them (Hamas) brining on the tragedy for the civilians. Having said that, I think Israel have escalated their attacks based on appeasing their ultra-right wing nutjobs and to give Netanyahu a chance of political survival rather than acceptable level of combat. Then they go and kill 2 Iranian generals in the Iranian consulate (or similar). That in itself is not the issue - but also the fact they attacked the Iranian consulate offices is downright dumb. Iran has for the first time directly attacked Israeli soil... I guess the Israeli's expected they would direct Hamas to come out fighting for Iran - or Hezbollah or some other.. When the Isarelis hit the consular offices, I thought it was a mightily dumb thing to do and suspected Iran may more than just sabre rattle like they have done in the past. Yet, the mainstream media are writing as if to suggest it will Iran that destablises the region further. I have to admit, I don't get it.. I get that the Iranians are a destabilising influence, and I get that they fund a lot of the terror groups against Israel. But, there are tactics and strategy, and it would appear that Israel is currently not playing the strategy and tactics well. Or am I missing something?

After drinking that bottle of Elbo, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, either 😉

Yes.. I though reflection, buy was thinking reflecting on its axes, not dounbling up the image. I knew it was something about the shape.

I would guess that W X and Y have a V shape in the and Z doesn't...

On a different note, why do pollies continue to use twitter/X as a platform to get a message across? Yes, there are people on it, but it is not a nice place owned by not a nice guy. Surely, they would not want to be seen as endorsing such a platform by using it?

All of it

I agree.. but to state it as fact is bollocks..Of those 130 - probably 20 are seriously liberal democracies..

I am about to jump on an intensice Aus Law session.. Can I quote this? 😉 Serioulsy, thanks for clearing it up.

Agree with the first, but not necessarily the second.. Society moves on very quicly.. In Eseque v Attorney General (I think) NSW, 2023, the NSW supreme court held that the definition of a term should first take place in the context of the act it is used. In the Sex Discrimination Act, I am not sure the differenceb between claimed and biological "sex" or "gender" was in the contemplation of the drafters.

Actually, according t the NSW site I quoted, there is.. there is no minimum stipulated, but there must be a gender affirming procedure tpo be considered the gender one wants to be on their birth certificate. And that is my point. Any other jurisdiction can (does not have to) treat anything Australia does as anything other than "persuasive").. You're right.. it goes back to the 15th century doctrine of stare decisis.. The thing about it is, the only thing binding is of a higher court in the same jurisdiction.. unless you can distibguish the facts in that jurisdiction.. .. The assertion it will apply to 130 countries, is, in the vernacular of this country I am currently in, bollocks

Hi Bebek, No.. and I am not a traitor, nor am I dumb (unless you consider leading a highly mathematical team, when I don't even have a degree as being dumb)... I do agree with some of your post, bit as someone who has previously worked in both civil and military nuclear, it is not a cut and dry answer to your question. But, I do agree. there should be a discussion based on the provrb you quoted.

Fark! Firstly, that is totally unAustralian.. Secondly, known to police, but can't release details until they confirm the identifity? WTF, do they take us as fools?

Just read about it... WTF? World is going crazy. Condolences to family and friends of the deceased. Hope the injured pull through OK. Hope the constable is doing well.

I had hit the enter key too early, then hit the wrong key which cleared everything.. What rights do women lose is this Tickle is found to be legally a woman? Do they lose their right to equality? Do they lose their rights over their reproductivity as a result of this case? Do they lose their rights to work as teachers while married? I think most reasonable people would answer no. So, no, not all legal rights of women would cease.. complete furphy. There are two primary legal issues, of which only one apparently hinges on whether Tickle is a woman - that being the discrimination issue in relation to access to the Giggle app. The other is simple harrasment, so if that part of the case is lost, it affirms that not even women are immune from their actions. Actually the issue doesn't even appear to be whether Tickle is legally a woman, but whether that legal classification of gender extends to the "sex" of someone for the purposes of the Sexual Discrimination Act. In other words, it appears that it is a staturoty interpretation exercise - does gender and sex mean the same thing, or is gender something that you are now, and sex is what you were biologically.. for the purposes of the act. Let's assume that the court finds that gender and sex are the same thing; Tickle has a female birth certificate, and therefore, Tickle is a she, and can use the app and attend female public dunnies and change rooms. From the perspective of a physical threat, would someone really go through all that trouble of slice and dice just so they could get into the ladies room and [no longer] rape or murder her? There may be a tiny minority of the population who would, but there are a tiny minoroty of the population who do all sorts of strange things with implements, yet we don't ban those implements. Let's face it, with the dark web and all, we would have banned the internet years ago. But, I do understand why there is a concern. I think the infolrmation here implies it is easy to change sex. I am sure a simple ear piercing wouldn't do it, a what is a gender affirming procedure - and what would be the minimum to be able to change one's sex in NSW? https://www.nsw.gov.au/family-and-relationships/name-changes-and-corrections/change-of-sex. It would be better to tighten when one could re-assign gender to be when the irreverisble has taken place.. slided and diced (or for women --> men, whatever is the equivalent). I am not saying trans people using womens facilities is not an issue, and IU certainly understand women feel threatened by it.. I am not a women and I can't know what the issues are for them. Of course, if the ruling was that all you had to do was get your ears pierced and say you're a woman, then I would be as aghast as anyone else. But, I a not sure that statistically this person would be any more a threat in the ladies than any other woman. This seems a little ideological and designed to sway the findings on policy and maybe a little on ideologiy: " CEO of a women-only social media app will not address a transgender woman as “Ms”, saying “I don’t think it’s kind to expect a woman to see a man as a woman”."

That is their assertion, but on what basis, exactly?

What policy is it, and what features of it would cause what problem,and require ove 130 countries to comply with an Australian court ruling, precisely? As I explained, when a country signs any international instrument such as a policy, treaty, convention, etc it does not bind that country or change the law in that country. The country has to ratify it and that, in most countries is a leglislative process. In Australia and every common law jurisdiction, a court will not recognise any obligations entered into without it having been leglislated. If we look at the International Convention of Refugees, of which Australia is a signatory, and our laws relating to refugees, we are grossly short of what we have signed up to. This is a matter of important public discussion, and I am discussing it, and I am being careful to keep ideology out of it and deal with the facts and legal points. I am not treating this lightly at all.

As ususal, relying on a youtube video is not always a great way to work out the details of a case. And, yes, it is being reported in the mainstream media - it is just not getting a lot of attention because, Ms. Tickle is suiing Giggle for discrimination on the grounds that, although born a make, she is now a female after having gone through gender affirmation surgery and the like. But here is one MSM artive for you https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/11/what-is-a-woman-court-asked-to-rule-on-definition-in-transgender-womans-case-against-giggle-for-girls-platform What Ms Tickle is suing for is damages for discrimination and harrasement resulting from online posts made by Ms. Grover that were, I guess, disparaging at best, but then may have unleashed a tirade of online hate. I have no idea who the Youtuber that presented that video is or what they stand for, but my spider senses tell me that they are not the likes of a social justice organisation. I have little idea of the gender bender issues at the moment, so I am only going to take a legal lense to this.. First, I think the claim that the decision will have world-wide ramifications is, at best, fanciful. Australia has no special seniority in the international legal order. It can be used as pursuasive precedent in other common law countries, and by pursuasive in the common law sense, means it can (but does not have to be) taken into consideration. Just because Australia is a signatory of whatever international convention that covers these things doesn't mean it is a legal requirement in Australian law (it has to be explicitly provided for either in legislation or much more rarely these days, case law before it becomes binding in australia). And other countries have to give power to the conventions (or treaties) in their own legal system - and they may do that to whateever extent they want. In other words, a) just because a country is a signature to an interanational convention or treaty, does not bind them to it until the legislate (or in the case of some countries such as Ireland, pass a referendum); and b) aother countries will implement their obligations in they way they see fit.. If they think Australia has gone too far or not far enough, that is all they will do - think it.. No country is obliged to implement anything that relates to a treaty or convention just because another country has. So, my BS radar is already showing up multipole contacts. I watched the first few minutes of the video, and I have to admit, I didn't think it was worth wasting too much of my time remaining on this earth with... Thee was a lot of posturing but not much fact on the ground... and that is another think that puts contacts on my BS radar. So, let's deal with the facts: A transgendered, male to female person wants to join an online women's only community. The transgendered person is initially acccepted but then booted out. It woud seem, legally, this transgendered person is a female if the article is to be believed - as the said peson has a female birth certificate. But, the peson was booted out for not being a female. the tansgendered person has had gender affirming surgery - so the full slide and dice, I would guess. It is alleged that posts by the defendant were at least disparaging (possibly inferring some form of political or ideological view) I would think, on the surface, Giggle does have a case to answer. I don't know this area of law at all, and I am not going to do hours of research for it, but I would suspect being in posession of a (valid) femal birth certificate would indicate that legally, Tickle is a female, and as an adult female, that make Tickle legally a woman. So, there may be damages for discrimination, as it does not matter how this person became a legal woman - if someone advertises a womem's only club and a legal woman is rejected on the grounds of how that person became one - an attribute of that person - there may well be a case to answer. The second part, which is the online harrasment will also turn on the facts; for example, was Giggle responding to harrasment by Tickle or notl was it excessive; was it designed to cause offence and incite online hatred, etc. In these cases, courts will take into account "policy", which the "unintended conequences" will be considered. I would like to think or hope they take a balanced approach. The question would have to be between the rights of this legal woman against the rights of genetic women (please I am not going into the debate of whether it is right or not.. I am only going on the legal points as far as I know or at least can guess them). For example, would those like Tickle, who live as a woman, went through the procedure (whatever it is) to obtain the legal classification of a woman, and have hasd the full slice and dice, act as a woman all the time, etc, be a threat to women in womens' only areas? Would people who generally identify as women be a disporoportionate threat to women, What about gender fluiditiy? Hopefully the judge will take these sorts of things into consideation when also determining if Giggle is a female or not. If I were a betting man, because Giggle has a female birth certificate, it will be very hard for a judge to say Giggle is not legally a female, unless there is something in the constituion that would override that. Australia does not have a bill of rights protected constitutionally, and judges have been willing to imply specific rights in specific situations. My guess will be, unless a constitutional construct can be found to invalidate Giggle's births certificate (and there would be a policy issue as well, because no doubt Giggle is not the only male to female transgendered person in Australia with a femal birth certificate), then Giggle will be found to be a woman, and the ratio (legal reasoning) will be a very narrow definition of what makes a trans person the other sex - such as no fluiditiy, has to have lived full time and publicly open about being the other gender and havem or be substantially down the road of non-reversible surgery or other medical treatment to being affirmed as the gender.. or something like that. Then there will be an appeal to the High Court - you can bet your arse on that one - and it will be finally decided. In terms of the threat to women - I will hold out until a decision - if it affirms TGs are in fact the gender they claim to be, then it will depend on the width or narrowness of the definition - if it is like above, then I would suggest it is not a big deal and that they represent no more threat statistically than women do to women. However, I have no numbers to back it up, so am happy to be corrected. If it was very broad and you are a woman when you think you are, then yes, I would consider that a very dangerous decision. Having said that, I understand why genetic women may not want a "proper" male --> female TG person in their womens only clubs.. It is seen as men or genetic males breaking down some of the privileges and rights they have fought hard for over the years. And I am not sure, no matter home much of a female a proper male --> female TG is, that they really are femaie in character, amongst other genetic females, so the conversations may be disporopritionately uncomfortable.. I don't know, of course. And then there is the question of sports, etc, which I have to say, I still think there should be a separate TG comp if they want to play sport. For the above, I think this: is, at this stage, hysterical scare mongering driven by the sensationalising of one side of the case. I think why those who support Giggle are trying to whip this up, especially with the ludicrouls claims of global ramifications, is to influence the policy component of the court decision, to save them a $100K payout amf further their ideology.