Alternative explanations of the volatility trend : Are they really that different?

We analyse the puzzling behavior of the volatility of individual stock returns around the turn of the Millennium. There has been much academic interest in this topic, but no convincing explanation has arisen. Our goal is to pull together the many competing explanations currently proposed in the literature to delermine which, if any, are capable of explaining the volatility trend. We find that many of the different explanations capture the same unusual trend around the Millennium. We find that many of the variables are very highly correlated and it is thus difficult to disentangle their relalive ability to exlplain the time-series behavior in volatility. It seems thai all of the variables that track average volatility well do so mainly by capturing changes in the post-1994 period. These variables have no time-series explanatory power in the pre-1995 years, questioning the underlying idea that any of the explanations currently plesented in the literature can track the trend in volatility over long periods.

Peer assisted study sessions

My journey with Peer Assisted Study Sessions, or Supplemental Instruction (SI), began in 1993 when I took over a 1st year, 1st semester unit in QUT's Bachelor of Engineering program. The unit had 500 enrolments with students from all 10 engineering majors at QUT. The 500 students received a 2 hour lecture and a 1 hour tutorial per week, usually run by academic staff or postgraduate students. The unit covered basic mechanics, which comprises a challenging set of topics on how forces interact with various bodies. One normally expects 1st year students to find it difficult to come to grips with the material. However, when I ran that unit in 1993, the failure rate had been usually around 50%.

The carrying capacity imperative : assessing regional carrying capacity methodologies for sustainable land-use planning

The global impact of an ever-increasing population-base combined with dangerously depleted natural resources highlights the urgent need for changes in human lifestyles and land-use patterns. To achieve more equitable and sustainable land use, it is imperative that populations live within the carrying capacity of their natural assets in a manner more accountable to and ethically responsible for the land which sustains them. Our society’s very survival may well depend on worldwide acceptance of the carrying capacity imperative as a principle of personal, political, economic, educational and planning responsibility. This theoretically-focused research identifies, examines and compares a range of methodological approaches to carrying capacity assessment and considers their relevance to future spatial planning. It also addresses existing gaps in current methodologies and suggests avenues for improvement. A set of eleven key criteria are employed to compare various existing carrying capacity assessment models. These criteria include whole-systems analysis, dynamic responses, levels of impact and risk, systemic constraints, applicability to future planning and the consideration of regional and local boundary delineation. This research finds that while some existing methodologies offer significant insights into the assessment of population carrying capacities, a comprehensive model is yet to be developed. However, it is suggested that by combining successful components from various authors, and collecting a range of interconnected data, a practical and workable systems-based model may be achievable in the future.