Coronavirus/COVID-19

[D Mitchell]

Maralinga is a symbol of our shortcomings not a solution. ... Now there was a leftie!
Two of the best opening lines of any song I've heard. For good measure he even tacks on a bit about the US alliance.

Come to think of it, it might be too dangerous to put a nuclear facility at Marilinga, there’s probably still radioactive material lying ‘round. Building transmission lines from Marilinga to Adelaide looks to be around 1 mil per km, so around $1,100,000,000.00, from Adelaide it should be able to be dispersed through existing infrastructure. Amortised over, what, 50 years ? Looks feasible.

By definition, renewables should be able to supply energy ad infinitum. With a bit of luck, that might be achieved in the future.

I’d never heard Hulett before. Another Scot coming here and singing about Aborigines. Isn’t Eric Bogle enough ? Did Colin Hay ever write/sing a song about Aborigines ?

 

[wayniac]

Watch this for a good reason that we won't be going > 75 % wind/solar for a long, long time.

For Michael Moore to put his name to this says a lot. Al Gore, makes Trump look like a saint.

 

[wayniac]

Trump mashed the message and CNN and the other bashers joined in. Here is a treatment that uses UV light (something discovered and used as early as 1940 but squashed when drugs and antibiotics became the miracle cure).

Aytu BioScience Signs Exclusive Global License with Cedars-Sinai for Potential Coronavirus Treatment

Cedars-Sinai-Developed ‘Healight' Medical Device Platform Technology Being Studied as a Potential First-in-Class COVID-19 Treatment

apnews.com

Led by Mark Pimentel, MD, the research team of the Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program at Cedars-Sinai has been developing the patent-pending Healight platform since 2016 and has produced a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating pre-clinical safety and effectiveness of the technology as an antiviral and antibacterial treatment. The Healight technology employs proprietary methods of administering intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light via a novel endotracheal medical device. Pre-clinical findings indicate the technology’s significant impact on eradicating a wide range of viruses and bacteria, inclusive of coronavirus. The data have been the basis of discussions with the FDA for a near-term path to enable human use for the potential treatment of coronavirus in intubated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Beyond the initial pursuit of a coronavirus ICU indication, additional data suggest broader clinical applications for the technology across a range of viral and bacterial pathogens. This includes bacteria implicated in ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP).

“Our team has shown that administering a specific spectrum of UV-A light can eradicate viruses in infected human cells (including coronavirus) and bacteria in the area while preserving healthy cells,” stated Dr. Pimentel of Cedars-Sinai. Ali Rezaie, MD, one of the inventors of this technology states, “Our lab at Cedars-Sinai has extensively studied the effects of this unique technology on bacteria and viruses. Based on our findings we believe this therapeutic approach has the potential to significantly impact the high morbidity and mortality of coronavirus-infected patients and patients infected with other respiratory pathogens. We are looking forward to partnering with Aytu BioScience to move this technology forward for the benefit of patients all over the world.”


The company believes the Healight platform technology has the potential to positively impact outcomes for critically ill patients infected with coronavirus and severe respiratory infections.

 

[wayniac]

Hmm a desciple of Keating is a bit strong, I did admire his attack on the “cultural cringe” though

Keating Blasts The Old Fogies Of The Liberal Party And The Cultural Cringe Of The 1950s • AustralianPolitics.com

Text, video and audio of Prime Minister Paul Keating's response to a question in the House on the Liberal Party and the 1950s.

australianpolitics.com

I do think Trump needs to use diplomacy in dealing with China, I couldn’t read the article from the Financial Times, as I don’t read that newspaper, not having the interests that people who read that newspaper have, so I am a little puzzled at your angle. The thing is China-manufactures parts that America and Australia for that matter, he won’t win a trade war.

in terms of the piggery debacle, I remember it vaguely, but was he selling his piggery to the government of Indonesia, or to Indonesian businesses? If it was the Indonesian government, definitely a conflict of interest, a Indonesian business I am not so sure.

Would that mean it is written in the parliamentary code of conduct that any diplomatic dealings with any country, you are not allowed to do business with anyone from that country? Really strange accusations to make considering the former treasurer was renting his wife’s rental property and paying his rent with his ministerial away from home government accommodation allowance, or legal of course, ethical I’m not so sure.

in terms of what Keating did, he did the hard work of stopping Australia’s tariffs, floating the dollar and riding out the rough ride afterwards. You don’t seriously think Howard set that up, Howard came in to reap the benefits of Keating policies and he squandered it on middle class welfare, as was discussed on this thread previously.

Your reference to industry super funds and retail superannuation fund, again not sure if I have missed your point, but the recent Royal Commission into the financial services sector, certainly showed how dodgy the retail superannuation sector is in their quest for finding a profit. The industry superannuation funds perform much better. Yes superannuation funds are riding out the markets at the moment, and there have been losses but they do diversify, not all are in construction.

You need to keep up. The Royal commission didn't dig very deep into the industry funds. There are lots of new articles about their lack of transparency and the likelihood of systemic failure. Not to have a reserve of cash to service a $10,000 drawdown is incompetence. Plus the millions they spend on misleading advertising.

Many people are recycling Warren Buffett’s famous quote that it’s only when the tide goes out that we discover who has been swimming naked. And for good reason: one Australian industry is looking pretty ugly right now, its mismanagement and hubris exposed by this current crisis. The naked swimmers are the trustees of the biggest industry superannuation funds and their directors.

This sector rode so high and mighty in the good times that it demanded that the corporate sector, especially the banks, take money from their owners and give it to causes deemed worthy by these industry super funds.

In the midst of this crisis, while the banks are honourably bailing out their customers, these sanctimonious industry super funds demand that ordinary Australians rescue them and their members from the consequences of the sector’s arrogance.

The biggest question is how this group has been protected from scrutiny and sensible regulation for so long, and what can be done to end its immunity from the kind of critical examination the rest of the financial sector has always faced.

Consider the causes of the arrogance and power of large industry super funds. They have been coddled by an industrial relations club that mandates that it be showered with never-ending torrents of new money. Of the 530 super funds listed in modern industrial awards, 96.6 per cent are industry super funds. That’s some gravy train.

With that guaranteed inflow of cash, it’s hardly surprising that industry super funds have grown fat and lazy about risk. They made two critical assumptions. First, that these vast inflows would always exceed the outflows they had to pay pensioners and superannuants. And second, they could keep less of their assets in cash or liquid assets to meet redemptions.

In fact, they doubled down on this bet by plunging members’ money into illiquid assets — they filled their portfolios with infrastructure, real estate, private equity and other forms of long-term assets that can’t be easily and quickly sold to meet redemptions.

These assets can’t be easily valued either — experts will tell you that the valuation of illiquid assets is essentially guesswork. If you don’t have a deep and liquid market into which to sell an asset, you really have no idea what that asset would fetch if and when the time came to sell.

The fact the valuation of illiquid assets is open to huge variation was a terrific advantage in so many ways for industry insiders during the good times.

Industry super funds could use boomtime assumptions to produce inflated valuations to prop up their performance relative to retail funds that don’t have the same guaranteed gravy train of inflows to invest in unlisted long-term asset classes.

That gives the industry funds one heck of a competitive edge and those inflated performance figures make for handsome bonuses for employees of industry funds and asset managers such as IFM.

This apparent outperformance by industry super funds seems to have anaesthetised the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and many others. They have been able to resist sensible regulation by pointing to their “healthy” performance, and they have received exemptions from the kind of stock-standard rules that govern other trustees of public money.

The upshot is that many industry super funds have ridiculously large boards stuffed full of union or industry association nominees who obligingly pass their directors’ fees back to their nominating union (where, lo and behold, it might find its way to the ALP) or industry association.

But now the music has stopped. What these big industry funds have sold to members as “balanced” funds doesn’t look so balanced any more.

The current crisis has exposed illiquidity issues. Many of their members have lost their jobs or lost hours of work, drying up the guaranteed flow of new superannuation contributions.

And the Morrison government has announced an emergency and temporary exemption allowing members in financial trouble to withdraw up to $10,000 a year from superannuation for each of the next two years.

The liquidity problem facing industry super funds has been compounded by the fact many members have been switching from what the industry funds call “balanced” options into cash options, requiring funds to liquidate long-term assets in the “balanced” options.

This new environment has forced industry funds to slash questionable valuations of illiquid assets in their “balanced” funds to avoid redeeming members or members who switch out of balanced funds into cash options getting a windfall at the expense of members who remain in the “balanced” funds.

So the jig is up. When comparisons between industry super funds and retail funds are adjusted for risk — as they should be — industry super funds don’t look so healthy after all.

Now that the tide has gone out, we can see two issues with greater clarity. First, trustees of industry super funds haven’t done a stellar job of managing risk through the full economic cycle, through good times and bad.

There was too much complacency from more than two decades of uninterrupted economic growth. And maybe some naivety too: Australian industry funds are relatively new, emerging only in the 1980s after the introduction of compulsory superannuation payments.

Second, APRA stands condemned for letting industry super funds get away with second-rate governance and poor management of risk through the full economic cycle.

Consider the hypocrisy of these super funds now wanting a bailout to deal with a liquidity problem of their own making during the boom times. For years, noisy industry funds have sanctimoniously demanded that company boards give up some profit to benefit society.

Now their mismanagement has exposed risks that their members may not have been told about. And the same industry funds want the Reserve Bank of Australia (aka the taxpayer) to bail out their members to protect their boards from claims of mismanagement. The industry funds no doubt will point to the help the government is giving the banks as a precedent for a bailout.

However, they should remember that the quid pro quo for banks getting government help is the banks meeting a stringent set of capital and liquidity rules, not to mention governance requirements such as a majority of independent directors. Do these funds want a similar regime instead of the namby-pamby one that applies now?

To date, and to its credit, the Morrison government has resisted their calls. Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg should stand even stronger, demanding APRA lift its game. How did the industry fund sector escape scrutiny of its dirty little secrets for so long?

Part of the reason is sheer thuggery. Industry Super Australia, the representative body for industry super funds, tried to silence Andrew Bragg a few years ago when he was at the Business Council of Australia for exposing the unholy links between unions and industry fund. Bragg, now a senator, is leading the push to reform industry super.

The voting power, and buying power, of huge industry funds is another part of the answer. Their special pleading and scare tactics to ensure they can keep feasting on members’ funds by having the super guarantee charge contribution increased from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent is the rest of the answer.

The pathetic plea for a taxpayer-funded bailout from mismanaged industry super funds is compelling evidence that workers should be allowed to keep more, not less, of their hard-earned money rather than be forced to shovel more into industry funds and their mates.

 

[D Mitchell]

The only thing missing from a transition to green electricity is political will, while the Government continues to be dictated to by the mining industry there is no political will. One of the first things Abbott did was defund the Clean energy corporation. Otheir countries like a Germany can do it, why can’t we?........

The Coalition's bill to defund ARENA and CEFC was defeated in the Senate, funding continued. It is inevitable that renewable sources of energy will emerge, no wonder there is investment although if renewable is going to be so good, why isn't there more ? It isn't lack of political will, it’s the cost and unreliability, remember South Australia ? It's not so much a “why should we” argument as the utility of it. If Aus completely transforms, it would make no difference to world emissions. It might give some a feeling of virtue, but that’s all. Is there any point transitioning until it’s enconomically feasible ?

When Germany closed down, I think it was 17, nuclear power stations in 2011, they replaced the source of power with coal fired. Emissions are higher than they were with the Nuclear Stations. To top it off, the owners sued the Government and were awarded 19 bil euros.

 

[LittleG]

Come to think of it, it might be too dangerous to put a nuclear facility at Marilinga, there’s probably still radioactive material lying ‘round. Building transmission lines from Marilinga to Adelaide looks to be around 1 mil per km, so around $1,100,000,000.00, from Adelaide it should be able to be dispersed through existing infrastructure. Amortised over, what, 50 years ? Looks feasible.

By definition, renewables should be able to supply energy ad infinitum. With a bit of luck, that might be achieved in the future.

I’d never heard Hulett before. Another Scot coming here and singing about Aborigines. Isn’t Eric Bogle enough ? Did Colin Hay ever write/sing a song about Aborigines ?

I have an anti-coronavirus bar I would like to sell you. It works by rubbing it on your hands while under warm water for roughly 20 seconds. It will remove any virus you have got on your hands.

As I only have 4, I am willing to sell you 1 of them for $1,000.00. Plus for today only you can get an extra bar free!!! Plus I will throw in a bar of soap, free of charge. That’s 3 of my 4 anti-Coronavirus bars for the price of one. A real bargain at $1,000.00.

Shall I send you a PayPal link and post them today?

 

[LittleG]

The Coalition's bill to defund ARENA and CEFC was defeated in the Senate, funding continued. It is inevitable that renewable sources of energy will emerge, no wonder there is investment although if renewable is going to be so good, why isn't there more ? It isn't lack of political will, it’s the cost and unreliability, remember South Australia ? It's not so much a “why should we” argument as the utility of it. If Aus completely transforms, it would make no difference to world emissions. It might give some a feeling of virtue, but that’s all. Is there any point transitioning until it’s enconomically feasible ?

When Germany closed down, I think it was 17, nuclear power stations in 2011, they replaced the source of power with coal fired. Emissions are higher than they were with the Nuclear Stations. To top it off, the owners sued the Government and were awarded 19 bil euros.

What happened in South Australia?

I also call bullshit on the 19Billiin Euro amount. Compensation was based on power they didn’t get to produce. Compensation estimated at less than $1Billion. Germany still saved money by generating green power instead at a lower cost than the nuclear.

You should follow a story to the end not just go by the amount the power companies sued for.

 

[King Harold]

Watch this for a good reason that we won't be going > 75 % wind/solar for a long, long time.

For Michael Moore to put his name to this says a lot. Al Gore, makes Trump look like a saint.

let me get this right .
Al Gore is evil ? Morally inferior to Trump , because he has a belief Climate change is a threat to the world ?
It matters not if is right or wrong, but surely if he has that conviction it is a reasonable pursuit
I get it you don’t agree with him , but have you no knowledge of Trumps history?
Do you suffer from amnesia , or are you another Trump cult follower ?

Just another veiled attempt to support a morally bankrupt crook.
Good luck with all that.

 

[wayniac]

let me get this right .
Al Gore is evil ? Morally inferior to Trump , because he has a belief Climate change is a threat to the world ?
It matters not if is right or wrong, but surely if he has that conviction it is a reasonable pursuit
I get it you don’t agree with him , but have you no knowledge of Trumps history?
Do you suffer from amnesia , or are you another Trump cult follower ?

Just another veiled attempt to support a morally bankrupt crook.
Good luck with all that.

You didn't have time to watch the documentary, so don't put words into my mouth. Do your homework.

You have jumped onto a bandwagon, void of evidence. I've presented a raft of medical opinions that actually back up Trumps bungled messages.

Trump is a twit, so are mainstream media. I prefer evidence over emotion. Just watch the Michael Moore doco. It will keep you off here and educate you.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

My compliments on your knowledge and analysis. Looks like it’s an area of interest to you. When Trump was elected, it looked to me as if he was going to take the US back to 1930s isolationism. Had the US gone isolationist, we’d be exposed. It didn’t, indeed, Trump led US seems to be be more interested in the Asia-Pacific than Europe.

The Alliance safeguards us. If we had to go it alone, we wouldn’t be able to get away with a defence budget of under 2 % GDP. Without the Alliance, we’d have to drastically increase defence spending. There goes spending on other areas. Morrison can afford to finance the lockdown. If we had to spend up big on defence, he may not have been able to have been so generous.

I agree with you about his erraticism, though. In a funny way I think it works for us. His unpredictability makes any potential invader even more cautious.

We should have a much more independent foreign policy and defence stance than the one we've had since, well...forever.

I'd actually argue that Trumps erratic behaviour and treatment of some of his closest allies might actually embolden any potential adversary and is in essence isolationist in itself. When you have a US president musing about the future of NATO which has been the cornerstone of US defence policy since the end of WWII you fully understand why this could be problematic for any middle tier allies like us. Especially when you consider that most of the beef that he has had with said allies, has seemed to favour authoritarian regimes like that found in Nth Korea or Russia over western styled democracies. Its a sad fact that this current regime that seems to thrive on the chaos of wrong footing allies just cannot be relied upon in times of crisis. The good news is that this situation will not last forever and at some point a more reliable and stable person from either party will become president.

As for invasion. Its an argument (like the one above) that is straying a long way from the one at hand and in my view is a complete non-starter. So briefly and then I'll leave it alone.

Theoretically the only nation on earth that could possibly undertake an invasion of this country is the one that we currently have the strongest alliance with.

Its a long way down through what would be contested sea lanes just to get to the sparsely populated north. As it stands the only other viable candidate is China and they can flex all of the might that they can bring to bear in what for the most part (aside from a few right of navigation exercises) is the uncontested Sth China sea where its brown water navy is best suited. However, the reality is that it just doesn't have the expeditionary capability to take it beyond the relative safety of their own territorial waters and into the blue water where the USN will have a massive power projection, qualitative and technological edge for years to come. There's also the not insubstantial issue of transiting through other countries just to get here and our own substantial ability to project power a long way to our north. I just dont see whats in it for China to do so when they could just as easily ruin us from very long range, but that brings problems of its own and is way way beyond the scope of what we should be a COVID-19 centric discussion.

Anyways...

 

[King Harold]

The Coalition's bill to defund ARENA and CEFC was defeated in the Senate, funding continued. It is inevitable that renewable sources of energy will emerge, no wonder there is investment although if renewable is going to be so good, why isn't there more ? It isn't lack of political will, it’s the cost and unreliability, remember South Australia ? It's not so much a “why should we” argument as the utility of it. If Aus completely transforms, it would make no difference to world emissions. It might give some a feeling of virtue, but that’s all. Is there any point transitioning until it’s enconomically feasible ?

When Germany closed down, I think it was 17, nuclear power stations in 2011, they replaced the source of power with coal fired. Emissions are higher than they were with the Nuclear Stations. To top it off, the owners sued the Government and were awarded 19 bil euros.

visited Germany last year. Turbines everywhere around the country side.
From my memory renewables account now for 40 % of energy , overtaking coal fired power stations in second spot for the first time.

 

[D Mitchell]

That's a reasonable analysis of current danger of invasion. 2 points
(a) blue water capability of the US Navy. Quite right as long as it will engage;
(b)If you are right, then y

We should have a much more independent foreign policy and defence stance than the one we've had since, well...forever.

I'd actually argue that Trumps erratic behaviour and treatment of some of his closest allies might actually embolden any potential adversary and is in essence isolationist in itself. When you have a US president musing about the future of NATO which has been the cornerstone of US defence policy since the end of WWII you fully understand why this could be problematic for any middle tier allies like us. Especially when you consider that most of the beef that he has had with said allies, has seemed to favour authoritarian regimes like that found in Nth Korea or Russia over western styled democracies. Its a sad fact that this current regime that seems to thrive on the chaos of wrong footing allies just cannot be relied upon in times of crisis. The good news is that this situation will not last forever and at some point a more reliable and stable person from either party will become president.

As for invasion. Its an argument (like the one above) that is straying a long way from the one at hand and in my view is a complete non-starter. So briefly and then I'll leave it alone.

Theoretically the only nation on earth that could possibly undertake an invasion of this country is the one that we currently have the strongest alliance with.

Its a long way down through what would be contested sea lanes just to get to the sparsely populated north. As it stands the only other viable candidate is China and they can flex all of the might that they can bring to bear in what for the most part (aside from a few right of navigation exercises) is the uncontested Sth China sea where its brown water navy is best suited. However, the reality is that it just doesn't have the expeditionary capability to take it beyond the relative safety of their own territorial waters and into the blue water where the USN will have a massive power projection, qualitative and technological edge for years to come. There's also the not insubstantial issue of transiting through other countries just to get here and our own substantial ability to project power a long way to our north. I just dont see whats in it for China to do so when they could just as easily ruin us from very long range, but that brings problems of its own and is way way beyond the scope of what we should be a COVID-19 centric discussion.

Anyways...

Fair analysis of current obvious danger. A couple of points

(a)Blue water capability. China is developing a capability and will the US Navy intervene ?
(b) Projection. Won't get the French Subs for another 15 years. Who knows what threats there might be then.

Build up doesn't happen quickly. Current defence budget is too small for a more rapid build up.

 

[King Harold]

You didn't have time to watch the documentary, so don't put words into my mouth. Do your homework.

You have jumped onto a bandwagon, void of evidence. I've presented a raft of medical opinions that actually back up Trumps bungled messages.

Trump is a twit, so are mainstream media. I prefer evidence over emotion. Just watch the Michael Moore doco. It will keep you off here and educate you.

What bandwagon ? If you are talking of the anti - Trump bandwagon , you are correct.
But with no evidence ?,
do we need to trot out all of Trumps history ?

Where in your post was the idea of Trumps to inject antiseptic supported by any medical fraternity ?
the article you posted was indeed interesting.

you didn’t answer one question I posed , all you gave me in a round about way that your a lot more educated than me.
Maybe you are !

PS , you have got a ignore option
I promise I will watch the doco and offer an apology if warranted.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

Fair analysis of current obvious danger. A couple of points

(a)Blue water capability. China is developing a capability and will the US Navy intervene ?
(b) Projection. Won't get the French Subs for another 15 years. Who knows what threats there might be then.

Build up doesn't happen quickly. Current defence budget is too small for a more rapid build up.

A) Indeed they are and under the current regime, one cannot be sure and thats my point. However, as it stands the USN has 7 aircraft carriers and associated levels of fleet support. China has two considerably smaller vessels that they are struggling to make operational. What PLA N doesn't have is generations of institutional knowledge in how to operate them like the USN does. Something often overlooked when counting ships and it is something as important as the assets themselves.

b) Also true and its something that should've been addressed a long time ago. By our ability to project power, Im also talking about the RAAF. However, the Collins Class is still a very potent asset especially in the shallow littoral waters found to our north.

The ADF is in the middle of an almost across the board refresh of its combat power and is or soon will as well equipped as it has ever been in a time of peace. The government has committed to fully go through with all current programs. Im not sure that in these times that anything beyond that can be realistically expected. The current threat environment just isn't there to justify it anyway.

People get pissed when this thread strays away form the subject at hand. Im not sure how they feel about theoretical discussions of conflict with China. I dont imagine its any different.

 

[dogwatch]

You need to keep up. The Royal commission didn't dig very deep into the industry funds. There are lots of new articles about their lack of transparency and the likelihood of systemic failure. Not to have a reserve of cash to service a $10,000 drawdown is incompetence. Plus the millions they spend on misleading advertising.

Many people are recycling Warren Buffett’s famous quote that it’s only when the tide goes out that we discover who has been swimming naked. And for good reason: one Australian industry is looking pretty ugly right now, its mismanagement and hubris exposed by this current crisis. The naked swimmers are the trustees of the biggest industry superannuation funds and their directors.

This sector rode so high and mighty in the good times that it demanded that the corporate sector, especially the banks, take money from their owners and give it to causes deemed worthy by these industry super funds.

In the midst of this crisis, while the banks are honourably bailing out their customers, these sanctimonious industry super funds demand that ordinary Australians rescue them and their members from the consequences of the sector’s arrogance.

The biggest question is how this group has been protected from scrutiny and sensible regulation for so long, and what can be done to end its immunity from the kind of critical examination the rest of the financial sector has always faced.

Consider the causes of the arrogance and power of large industry super funds. They have been coddled by an industrial relations club that mandates that it be showered with never-ending torrents of new money. Of the 530 super funds listed in modern industrial awards, 96.6 per cent are industry super funds. That’s some gravy train.

With that guaranteed inflow of cash, it’s hardly surprising that industry super funds have grown fat and lazy about risk. They made two critical assumptions. First, that these vast inflows would always exceed the outflows they had to pay pensioners and superannuants. And second, they could keep less of their assets in cash or liquid assets to meet redemptions.

In fact, they doubled down on this bet by plunging members’ money into illiquid assets — they filled their portfolios with infrastructure, real estate, private equity and other forms of long-term assets that can’t be easily and quickly sold to meet redemptions.

These assets can’t be easily valued either — experts will tell you that the valuation of illiquid assets is essentially guesswork. If you don’t have a deep and liquid market into which to sell an asset, you really have no idea what that asset would fetch if and when the time came to sell.

The fact the valuation of illiquid assets is open to huge variation was a terrific advantage in so many ways for industry insiders during the good times.

Industry super funds could use boomtime assumptions to produce inflated valuations to prop up their performance relative to retail funds that don’t have the same guaranteed gravy train of inflows to invest in unlisted long-term asset classes.

That gives the industry funds one heck of a competitive edge and those inflated performance figures make for handsome bonuses for employees of industry funds and asset managers such as IFM.

This apparent outperformance by industry super funds seems to have anaesthetised the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and many others. They have been able to resist sensible regulation by pointing to their “healthy” performance, and they have received exemptions from the kind of stock-standard rules that govern other trustees of public money.

The upshot is that many industry super funds have ridiculously large boards stuffed full of union or industry association nominees who obligingly pass their directors’ fees back to their nominating union (where, lo and behold, it might find its way to the ALP) or industry association.

But now the music has stopped. What these big industry funds have sold to members as “balanced” funds doesn’t look so balanced any more.

The current crisis has exposed illiquidity issues. Many of their members have lost their jobs or lost hours of work, drying up the guaranteed flow of new superannuation contributions.

And the Morrison government has announced an emergency and temporary exemption allowing members in financial trouble to withdraw up to $10,000 a year from superannuation for each of the next two years.

The liquidity problem facing industry super funds has been compounded by the fact many members have been switching from what the industry funds call “balanced” options into cash options, requiring funds to liquidate long-term assets in the “balanced” options.

This new environment has forced industry funds to slash questionable valuations of illiquid assets in their “balanced” funds to avoid redeeming members or members who switch out of balanced funds into cash options getting a windfall at the expense of members who remain in the “balanced” funds.

So the jig is up. When comparisons between industry super funds and retail funds are adjusted for risk — as they should be — industry super funds don’t look so healthy after all.

Now that the tide has gone out, we can see two issues with greater clarity. First, trustees of industry super funds haven’t done a stellar job of managing risk through the full economic cycle, through good times and bad.

There was too much complacency from more than two decades of uninterrupted economic growth. And maybe some naivety too: Australian industry funds are relatively new, emerging only in the 1980s after the introduction of compulsory superannuation payments.

Second, APRA stands condemned for letting industry super funds get away with second-rate governance and poor management of risk through the full economic cycle.

Consider the hypocrisy of these super funds now wanting a bailout to deal with a liquidity problem of their own making during the boom times. For years, noisy industry funds have sanctimoniously demanded that company boards give up some profit to benefit society.

Now their mismanagement has exposed risks that their members may not have been told about. And the same industry funds want the Reserve Bank of Australia (aka the taxpayer) to bail out their members to protect their boards from claims of mismanagement. The industry funds no doubt will point to the help the government is giving the banks as a precedent for a bailout.

However, they should remember that the quid pro quo for banks getting government help is the banks meeting a stringent set of capital and liquidity rules, not to mention governance requirements such as a majority of independent directors. Do these funds want a similar regime instead of the namby-pamby one that applies now?

To date, and to its credit, the Morrison government has resisted their calls. Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg should stand even stronger, demanding APRA lift its game. How did the industry fund sector escape scrutiny of its dirty little secrets for so long?

Part of the reason is sheer thuggery. Industry Super Australia, the representative body for industry super funds, tried to silence Andrew Bragg a few years ago when he was at the Business Council of Australia for exposing the unholy links between unions and industry fund. Bragg, now a senator, is leading the push to reform industry super.

The voting power, and buying power, of huge industry funds is another part of the answer. Their special pleading and scare tactics to ensure they can keep feasting on members’ funds by having the super guarantee charge contribution increased from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent is the rest of the answer.

The pathetic plea for a taxpayer-funded bailout from mismanaged industry super funds is compelling evidence that workers should be allowed to keep more, not less, of their hard-earned money rather than be forced to shovel more into industry funds and their mates.

I don't mind you posting this stuff as it keeps us all on our toes (although it's a bit long) but it's only fair to quote your source when a substantial part of it is verbatim from one person, in this case Janet Albrechtsen of the Australian (31 March 20). In fact apart from the first paragraph it appears to be all her work.

Must say I'm enjoying the wide-ranging debate(s) and the material being posted. There's so much material that I can't keep up!
Mrs dogwatch and I are going to watch the Planet of the Humans doco tonight. Thanks for alerting me to it.

 

[LittleG]

I don't mind you posting this stuff as it keeps us all on our toes (although it's a bit long) but it's only fair to quote your source when a substantial part of it is verbatim from one person, in this case Janet Albrechtsen of the Australian (31 March 20). In fact apart from the first paragraph it appears to be all her work.

Must say I'm enjoying the wide-ranging debate(s) and the material being posted. There's so much material that I can't keep up!
Mrs dogwatch and I are going to watch the Planet of the Humans doco tonight. Thanks for alerting me to it.

I doubt the two of them understand what they are posting.... in fact, I would say it’s probably just trolling.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

I doubt the two of them understand what they are posting.... in fact, I would say it’s probably just trolling.

A few posters in here remind me of the long haired bloke from the bar scene in Good Will Hunting.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

You need to keep up. The Royal commission didn't dig very deep into the industry funds. There are lots of new articles about their lack of transparency and the likelihood of systemic failure. Not to have a reserve of cash to service a $10,000 drawdown is incompetence. Plus the millions they spend on misleading advertising.

Many people are recycling Warren Buffett’s famous quote that it’s only when the tide goes out that we discover who has been swimming naked. And for good reason: one Australian industry is looking pretty ugly right now, its mismanagement and hubris exposed by this current crisis. The naked swimmers are the trustees of the biggest industry superannuation funds and their directors.

This sector rode so high and mighty in the good times that it demanded that the corporate sector, especially the banks, take money from their owners and give it to causes deemed worthy by these industry super funds.

In the midst of this crisis, while the banks are honourably bailing out their customers, these sanctimonious industry super funds demand that ordinary Australians rescue them and their members from the consequences of the sector’s arrogance.

The biggest question is how this group has been protected from scrutiny and sensible regulation for so long, and what can be done to end its immunity from the kind of critical examination the rest of the financial sector has always faced.

Consider the causes of the arrogance and power of large industry super funds. They have been coddled by an industrial relations club that mandates that it be showered with never-ending torrents of new money. Of the 530 super funds listed in modern industrial awards, 96.6 per cent are industry super funds. That’s some gravy train.

With that guaranteed inflow of cash, it’s hardly surprising that industry super funds have grown fat and lazy about risk. They made two critical assumptions. First, that these vast inflows would always exceed the outflows they had to pay pensioners and superannuants. And second, they could keep less of their assets in cash or liquid assets to meet redemptions.

In fact, they doubled down on this bet by plunging members’ money into illiquid assets — they filled their portfolios with infrastructure, real estate, private equity and other forms of long-term assets that can’t be easily and quickly sold to meet redemptions.

These assets can’t be easily valued either — experts will tell you that the valuation of illiquid assets is essentially guesswork. If you don’t have a deep and liquid market into which to sell an asset, you really have no idea what that asset would fetch if and when the time came to sell.

The fact the valuation of illiquid assets is open to huge variation was a terrific advantage in so many ways for industry insiders during the good times.

Industry super funds could use boomtime assumptions to produce inflated valuations to prop up their performance relative to retail funds that don’t have the same guaranteed gravy train of inflows to invest in unlisted long-term asset classes.

That gives the industry funds one heck of a competitive edge and those inflated performance figures make for handsome bonuses for employees of industry funds and asset managers such as IFM.

This apparent outperformance by industry super funds seems to have anaesthetised the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and many others. They have been able to resist sensible regulation by pointing to their “healthy” performance, and they have received exemptions from the kind of stock-standard rules that govern other trustees of public money.

The upshot is that many industry super funds have ridiculously large boards stuffed full of union or industry association nominees who obligingly pass their directors’ fees back to their nominating union (where, lo and behold, it might find its way to the ALP) or industry association.

But now the music has stopped. What these big industry funds have sold to members as “balanced” funds doesn’t look so balanced any more.

The current crisis has exposed illiquidity issues. Many of their members have lost their jobs or lost hours of work, drying up the guaranteed flow of new superannuation contributions.

And the Morrison government has announced an emergency and temporary exemption allowing members in financial trouble to withdraw up to $10,000 a year from superannuation for each of the next two years.

The liquidity problem facing industry super funds has been compounded by the fact many members have been switching from what the industry funds call “balanced” options into cash options, requiring funds to liquidate long-term assets in the “balanced” options.

This new environment has forced industry funds to slash questionable valuations of illiquid assets in their “balanced” funds to avoid redeeming members or members who switch out of balanced funds into cash options getting a windfall at the expense of members who remain in the “balanced” funds.

So the jig is up. When comparisons between industry super funds and retail funds are adjusted for risk — as they should be — industry super funds don’t look so healthy after all.

Now that the tide has gone out, we can see two issues with greater clarity. First, trustees of industry super funds haven’t done a stellar job of managing risk through the full economic cycle, through good times and bad.

There was too much complacency from more than two decades of uninterrupted economic growth. And maybe some naivety too: Australian industry funds are relatively new, emerging only in the 1980s after the introduction of compulsory superannuation payments.

Second, APRA stands condemned for letting industry super funds get away with second-rate governance and poor management of risk through the full economic cycle.

Consider the hypocrisy of these super funds now wanting a bailout to deal with a liquidity problem of their own making during the boom times. For years, noisy industry funds have sanctimoniously demanded that company boards give up some profit to benefit society.

Now their mismanagement has exposed risks that their members may not have been told about. And the same industry funds want the Reserve Bank of Australia (aka the taxpayer) to bail out their members to protect their boards from claims of mismanagement. The industry funds no doubt will point to the help the government is giving the banks as a precedent for a bailout.

However, they should remember that the quid pro quo for banks getting government help is the banks meeting a stringent set of capital and liquidity rules, not to mention governance requirements such as a majority of independent directors. Do these funds want a similar regime instead of the namby-pamby one that applies now?

To date, and to its credit, the Morrison government has resisted their calls. Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg should stand even stronger, demanding APRA lift its game. How did the industry fund sector escape scrutiny of its dirty little secrets for so long?

Part of the reason is sheer thuggery. Industry Super Australia, the representative body for industry super funds, tried to silence Andrew Bragg a few years ago when he was at the Business Council of Australia for exposing the unholy links between unions and industry fund. Bragg, now a senator, is leading the push to reform industry super.

The voting power, and buying power, of huge industry funds is another part of the answer. Their special pleading and scare tactics to ensure they can keep feasting on members’ funds by having the super guarantee charge contribution increased from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent is the rest of the answer.

The pathetic plea for a taxpayer-funded bailout from mismanaged industry super funds is compelling evidence that workers should be allowed to keep more, not less, of their hard-earned money rather than be forced to shovel more into industry funds and their mates.

This is really quite bizarre. You appear to have lifted an entire news article and passed it off as your own words.

 

[BEaston]

I don't mind you posting this stuff as it keeps us all on our toes (although it's a bit long) but it's only fair to quote your source when a substantial part of it is verbatim from one person, in this case Janet Albrechtsen of the Australian (31 March 20). In fact apart from the first paragraph it appears to be all her work.

Must say I'm enjoying the wide-ranging debate(s) and the material being posted. There's so much material that I can't keep up!
Mrs dogwatch and I are going to watch the Planet of the Humans doco tonight. Thanks for alerting me to it.

haha, thought it read a bit out of character

 

[dogwatch]

I doubt the two of them understand what they are posting.... in fact, I would say it’s probably just trolling.

No I disagree. This just reminds us that the Doggies community is probably as diverse as society itself.
I've met Wayniac (briefly) and he didn't strike me as a troll or a dimwit.

I like that we have a "let it rip" thread where we can digress onto any topic during the lockdown. It's stimulating, informative and a good opportunity to test one's opinions against whatever evidence others might want to bring forward. In a curious way it brings us together, even with our differences of opinion.

Of course we don't have to engage. When it gets into personal abuse I'm happy to back out, but that's not often. I get no satisfaction from abusive exchanges.

 

[Arkangel]

You didn't have time to watch the documentary, so don't put words into my mouth. Do your homework.

You have jumped onto a bandwagon, void of evidence. I've presented a raft of medical opinions that actually back up Trumps bungled messages.

Trump is a twit, so are mainstream media. I prefer evidence over emotion. Just watch the Michael Moore doco. It will keep you off here and educate you.

If you have watched the film and find it convincing, why not just summarise what you view as the most important points? Seems a lot more efficient than asking people to spend two hours watching a documentary.

 

[LittleG]

No I disagree. This just reminds us that the Doggies community is probably as diverse as society itself.
I've met Wayniac (briefly) and he didn't strike me as a troll or a dimwit.

I like that we have a "let it rip" thread where we can digress onto any topic during the lockdown. It's stimulating, informative and a good opportunity to test one's opinions against whatever evidence others might want to bring forward. In a curious way it brings us together, even with our differences of opinion.

Of course we don't have to engage. When it gets into personal abuse I'm happy to back out, but that's not often. I get no satisfaction from abusive exchanges.

I have met 3 posters from this thread before but not wayniac or yourself. I will take your word for it.

 

[Arkangel]

When Germany closed down, I think it was 17, nuclear power stations in 2011, they replaced the source of power with coal fired. Emissions are higher than they were with the Nuclear Stations. To top it off, the owners sued the Government and were awarded 19 bil euros.

With regard to the bolded, what exactly are you referring to? German emissions from energy generation last year were the lowest they've been for decades (see figure and raw data here), and certainly lower than they were in 2010/2011/2012, so just wondering if you mean something more specific than that.

 

[Mattdougie]

Lol

It’s great that the word troll in here is given to anyone with the courage to have a differing opinion and not back down to the superiors.

I wonder if any of the people throwing that label out understand that thought process is exactly what got Trump elected and Will be a big factor if it happens again.

 

[dogwatch]

I have met 3 posters from this thread before but not wayniac or yourself. I will take your word for it.

Of course I could be wrong ...