Audit fees and asset securitization risks

The thesis investigates “where were the auditors in asset securitizations”, a criticism of the audit profession before and after the onset of the global financial crisis (GFC). Asset securitizations increase audit complexity and audit risks, which are expected to increase audit fees. Using US bank holding company data from 2003 to 2009, this study examines the association between asset securitization risks and audit fees, and its changes during the global financial crisis. The main test is based on an ordinary least squares (OLS) model, which is adapted from the Fields et al. (2004) bank audit fee model. I employ a principal components analysis to address high correlations among asset securitization risks. Individual securitization risks are also separately tested. A suite of sensitivity tests indicate the results are robust. These include model alterations, sample variations, further controls in the tests, and correcting for the securitizer self-selection problem. A partial least squares (PLS) path modelling methodology is introduced as a separate test, which allows for high intercorrelations, self-selection correction, and sequential order hypotheses in one simultaneous model. The PLS results are consistent with the main results. The study finds significant and positive associations between securitization risks and audit fees. After the commencement of the global financial crisis in 2007, there was an increased focus on the role of audits on asset securitization risks resulting from bank failures; therefore I expect that auditors would become more sensitive to bank asset securitization risks after the commencement of the crisis. I find that auditors appear to focus on different aspects of asset securitization risks during the crisis and that auditors appear to charge a GFC premium for banks. Overall, the results support the view that auditors consider asset securitization risks and market changes, and adjust their audit effort and risk considerations accordingly.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Green building incentives: A review

Green building incentives are important to promoting green building. However, it lacks a systematic review of existing knowledge. This paper aims to elicit the common themes in studies of green building incentives through a systematic review. It is found that the common research areas into green building incentives are incentive categorisation, its effectiveness on promoting green building development, criticism of current green incentive implementation and strategies for improving green building incentives. Green building incentives are categorised into external and internal incentives. The external incentive is a forced choice whereby beneficiaries are required to fulfil specified conditions or requirements before benefitting, while the internal incentive allows beneficiaries to be incentivised out of volition because of the appeal of the benefits of green buildings. The external incentives, which are largely provided by the government, are divided into financial and non-financial incentives. It is found that owners are more incentivised by non-financial incentives. In terms of effectiveness, both external and internal incentives are important instruments for promoting green building, although it is not clear which are the more effective. Furthermore, the review uncovered criticisms of external green building incentives, which mainly focus on shortcomings in administering the incentives by the government. The strategies for improving green building incentives were also found, the most important of these being the need for the government to redirect its approach of providing incentives so that owners can be encouraged to pursue green building. The review findings signify the importance of the government in relation to green building incentives. Further research areas that could expand the knowledge of green building incentives are also recommended.

Now the real international fight begins for the Trans-Pacific Partnership

In Atlanta, the trade ministers of a dozen countries across the Pacific Rim announced that they had successfully reached a concluded agreement upon the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The debate over the TPP will now play out in legislatures across the Pacific Rim, where sentiment towards the deal is much more mixed. The ministers insisted: “After more than five years of intensive negotiations, we have come to an agreement that will support jobs, drive sustainable growth, foster inclusive development, and promote innovation across the Asia-Pacific region … The agreement achieves the goal we set forth of an ambitious, comprehensive, high standard and balanced agreement that will benefit our nation’s citizens … We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.” But there has been fierce criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because of both its secrecy and its substance. Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz has warned that the agreement is not about free trade, but about the protection of corporate monopolies. The intellectual property chapter provides for longer and stronger protection of intellectual property rights. The investment chapter provides foreign investors with the power to challenge governments under an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. The environment chapter is weak and toothless, and seems to be little more than an exercise in greenwashing. The health annex — and many other parts of the agreement — strengthen the power of pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology developers. The text on state-owned enterprises raises concerns about public ownership of postal services, broadcasters and national broadband services.

The Deleuze Spray, New York 1977 : an Interview with Sanford Kwinter, Professor of Architectural Theory and Criticism at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, on the Architectural Reception of Gilles Deleuze in America

So what do you want to know? I was in Paris between ‘75 and ‘78. But about half way through, Sylvère published the Anti-Oedipus issue of Semiotext(e) and, actually, that was for me one of the deciding events that made me decide to come to the United States, to come study at Columbia University. There appeared to be this little group working at Columbia working around these issues. In 1970, in Paris even, Deleuze was a cult – there was an incredibly small number of people following Deleuze... A transcript of my Interview with Kwinter about the Architectural Reception of Deleuze in America, which took place at Jerry’s,' Soho, New York, 15 January 2003. The transcript appeared as an Appendix at the back of my Masters Thesis undertaken at Yale School of Architecture, printed May 2003.

Landscape symphonies : gardening as a source of landscape architecture practice engaged with change

The notion of designing with change constitutes a fundamental and foundational theoretical premise for much of what constitutes landscape architecture, notably through engagement with ecology, particularly since the work of Ian McHarg in the 1960s and his key text Design with Nature. However, while most if not all texts in landscape architecture would cite this engagement of change theoretically, few go any further than citation, and when they do their methods seem fixated on utilising empirical, quantitative scientific tools for doing so, rather than the tools of design, in an architectural sense, as implied by the name of the discipline, landscape architecture.

The lens of ludic engagement : evaluating participation in interactive art installations

Designers and artists have integrated recent advances in interactive, tangible and ubiquitous computing technologies to create new forms of interactive environments in the domains of work, recreation, culture and leisure. Many designs of technology systems begin with the workplace in mind, and with function, ease of use, and efficiency high on the list of priorities. [1] These priorities do not fit well with works designed for an interactive art environment, where the aims are many, and where the focus on utility and functionality is to support a playful, ambiguous or even experimental experience for the participants. To evaluate such works requires an integration of art-criticism techniques with more recent Human Computer Interaction (HCI) methods, and an understanding of the different nature of engagement in these environments. This paper begins a process of mapping a set of priorities for amplifying engagement in interactive art installations. I first define the concept of ludic engagement and its usefulness as a lens for both design and evaluation in these settings. I then detail two fieldwork evaluations I conducted within two exhibitions of interactive artworks, and discuss their outcomes and the future directions of this research.

Towards a literacy of attention

In 1997, business trend analyst Linda Stone proposed the term "continuous partial attention" to characterise the contemporary experience of wanting to be ‘a live node on the network’. She argued that while it can be a positive and functional behaviour, it also has the potential to be disabling, compromising reflective and creative thought. Subsequent studies have explored the ways in which technology has slowly disrupted the idea and experience of a "centred" and "bounded" self. Studies of ‘Gen Y’ show the ease with which young people accommodate this multiplying of the self as they negotiate their partial friendships and networks of interest with family and work. In teaching and learning circles in tertiary education we talk a lot about problems of student ‘disengagement’. In characterising our challenge this way, are we undermining our potential to understand the tendencies of contemporary learners? This paper begins a consideration of how traditional models, frameworks and practices might oppose these partially engaged but continuously connected and interpersonal "dividuals". What questions does this provoke for learning environments towards harnessing yet counterpointing the crisis students might experience; to recognise but also integrate their multiple selves towards what they aim to become through the process of learning?

What student attributes affect experience of PBL in Virtual Space?

Some Engineering Faculties are turning to the problem-based learning (PBL)paradigm to engender necessary skills and competence in their graduates. Since, at the same time, some Faculties are moving towards distance education, questions are being asked about the effectiveness of PBL for technical fields such as Engineering when delivered in virtual space. This paper outlines an investigation of how student attributes affect their learning experience in PBL courses offered in virtual space. A frequency distribution was superimposed on the outcome space of a phenomenographical study on a suitable PBL course to investigate the effect of different student attributes on the learning experience. It was discovered that the quality, quantity, and style of facilitator interaction had the greatest impact on the student learning experience. This highlights the need to establish consistent student interaction plans and to set, and ensure compliance with, minimum standards with respect to facilitation and student interactions.

Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroom environment

The relationships between teacher praise and feedback, and students’ perceptions of the classroom environment were investigated in six rural elementary schools (n 5 747). The Teacher Feedback Scale and My Classroom Scale were developed as part of this study and used to collect the data. Structural equation modelling was used to test a hypothesised model. The results indicated that negative teacher feedback and effort feedback were both related to students’ relationships with their teachers, while ability feedback was associated with perceptions of the classroom environment. Praise was not related to classroom environment or teacher–student relationships. Significant age and gender differences were found. Additionally, differences were found between students who were satisfied with their classroom and those who were dissatisfied. Satisfied students received more general praise, general ability feedback, effort feedback and less negative teacher feedback when compared to dissatisfied students. Research studies have emphasised the influence of signicicant adults (teachers and parents) on students’ personal development (Porlier et al., 1999) and the importance of significant others’ verbal statements when directed at children (Burnett, 1996a). The relationships between negative and positive statements made by teachers, parents, peers and siblings and children’s self-talk have been investigated (Burnett, 1996a) and positive statements (praise) have been found to be more beneficial than verbal criticism (Burnett, 1999). The quality of life in the classroom in recent times has been considered of great importance to students (Thorp et al., 1994) and this is recognised by Baker (1999) who reported a relationship between students’ satisfaction with the learning environment, and differential teacher feedback and praise. This study investigated the relationships between teacher praise and feedback, and how students perceived their classroom and their relationship with their teacher.

Comparing the ethical predisposition of university students in five English-speaking countries : an examination of 14 questionable business practices

Recent years have seen intense scrutiny focused on the reported ethical breaches of enterprises across the globe. At the forefront of the accompanying criticism are the actions of giant American firms such as WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, and Enron. However, such deviations from acceptable standards of conduct have not been confined to the American market. Australia endured its era of “corporate excess” in the 1980s [Milton-Smith, 1997]. As a result, a spate of ethics-based research was undertaken in the early 1990s. More recently, China has been identified as a major venue for behavior deemed to be unacceptable, even unsafe. Issues such as counterfeit fashion items, software, and automobile parts have been a concern for several years [Gonzalez, 2007]. Perhaps more disconcerting are the recent recalls of children’s products, many of which were produced for leading toy companies such as Mattel and Fisher-Price, because of the use of dangerous lead-based paint. As one might anticipate, news reports and consumer protection agencies have been quick to condemn any action that falls within the “controversial” category. Indeed, many segments of society characterize such actions as unethical behavior. One result of this increased level of concern is the higher level of attention given to ethics in higher education programs. Even accreditation bodies such as AACSB have virtually mandated the integration of ethics into the curriculum. As a consequence, academicians have ramped up their ethics-based research agendas.

What is in the name of a fashion designer

Currently, fashion quite comfortably covers the space between unique pieces and serialisation, mobilising as necessary the discourses of art or commerce; however, the question of what a fashion designer is remains open. Historically, the image of the fashion designer has been constructed within a heroic and Romantic narrative centred on the concept of designers as artists and hence authors. The recent development of the fashion industry as an image-driven industry, on the one hand, and the placement of fashion in museum contexts on the other, requires a re-thinking of the function of the designer. This paper does not set out to identify a theory that establishes a truthful answer to the position and significance of the fashion designer within the fashion system, but it proposes that an analytical and critical understanding of the fashion designer requires a contextualisation of the philosophies and institutions (including fashion magazines and fashion criticism) that support it.

The family attitude scale : reliability and validity of a new scale for measuring the emotional climate of families

Research on outcomes from psychiatric disorders has highlighted the importance of expressed emotion (EE), but its cost-effective measurement remains a challenge. This article describes development of the Family Attitude Scale (FAS), a 30-item instrument that can be completed by any informant. Its psychometric characteristics are reported in parents of undergraduate students and in 70 families with a schizophrenic member. The total FAS had high internal consistency in all samples, and reports of angry behaviour in FAS items showed acceptable inter-rater agreement. The FAS was associated with the reported anger, anger expression and anxiety of respondents. Substantial associations between the parents' FAS and the anger and anger expression of students was also observed. Parents of schizophrenic patients had higher FAS scores than parents of students, and the FAS was higher if disorder duration was longer or patient functioning was poorer. Hostility, high criticism and low warmth on the Camberwell Family Interview (CFI) were associated with a more negative FAS. The highest FAS in the family was a good predictor of a highly critical environment on the CFI. The FAS is a reliable and valid indicator of relationship stress and expressed anger that has wide applicability.