The Melbourne Cup, a 3,200–metre race for horses more than three years old, has long been called “the race that stops the nation”.

Held each year on the first Tuesday in November at Flemington Racecourse in Melbourne, it attracts racehorses from overseas, politicians, sporting identities, fashionistas and others from among the wealthy and the famous.

It’s also a bonanza for betting companies. As Australia’s biggest one-day race gambling event, the total amount wagered currently exceeds that of any other Australian horse race by far.

But much of the gloss has been rubbed off. Other prestige races are coming up on its heels, and punters are increasingly drawn to betting on other activities – such as AFL and NRL.

And there’s also been a long-term decline in interest in animal racing in general, amid growing concerns about animal cruelty.

So, is the Melbourne Cup still stopping the nation in the way it used to? Here’s what the numbers reveal.

Shrinking crowds

In 2003, in-person attendance at the Cup was nearly 123,000, the biggest crowd since the turn of the millennium. By 2024, that had declined to 91,000.

The largest crowd in the intervening years was in 2010, when over 110,000 attended.

---

---

The Victoria Racing Club argues active attempts were made to reduce crowd sizes after 2003, when it became clear that a crowd of over 120,000 people made for an uncomfortable day at the races.

But the trend for attendance has been on a downward trajectory throughout the 21st century. There has been a modest recovery post-pandemic restrictions, but crowds are still well down from the peak.

A TV broadcast watched by fewer people across the nation

What about the Melbourne Cup’s TV audience? Many workplaces around the country still stop work to watch the race on TV – even in the work-from-home era. Victoria has a dedicated public holiday.

The Australian Financial Review reports that before 2015, the TV audience was over 3 million. In 2021, that declined to 1.7 million, and in 2022 to 1.35 million.

A new broadcaster, the Nine network, took that viewership back up to 1.9 million in 2024. But it’s still well off its high.

Bookmakers’ big day – but it is falling

Bookmakers love the Melbourne Cup. It provides them with a major opportunity to sign up new, casual punters who open an account to place a bet on the day.

Once they’re on board, the marketing to these customers is unending.

In 2022, turnover on the Cup – the amount that is bet, as opposed to revenue, which is the amount punters lose (and bookies keep) – was A$226 million.

By 2024, that had declined to $214 million.

According to Racing Victoria, this remains the highest race turnover in Australia, well above the next placed. But it still represents a decline between 2022 and 2024 of about 13% in real terms (adjusted for inflation).

In recent years, total wagering turnover in Australia – meaning betting on any events, from sports to elections – has also surprisingly declined.

Total real wagering turnover was $22.3 billion in 2023-24, down from $31.2 billion in 2020-21 (again, in real terms).

A recent survey on gambling behaviour in New South Wales reported race wagering as a proportion of the NSW population declined from 24% in 2011 to 9.9% in 2024.

Participation in sports wagering in NSW, however, grew from 6.1% in 2019 to 7.6% in 2024, with stronger engagement among younger men.

Competition from ‘richer’ races

The Melbourne Cup also faces competition from relatively new entries in the prestige (group 1) race stakes.

For example, since 2017, Racing NSW has run The Everest, now a $20 million race, at Royal Randwick racecourse in Sydney, on Caulfield Cup day. It has since moved to second place in wagering turnover, surpassing every other race except the Melbourne Cup.

However, wagering turnover is well behind the Cup. Crowds are much smaller, too, at around 50,000. It needs to grow quite a bit to overshadow the Cup.

Societal shift

So, why is the Melbourne Cup, and horse racing generally, in decline?

Falling wagering overall, and the emergence of new gambling markets, go some way to explain it.

Researchers have also reported a societal shift towards “a strong animal ethics sentiment combined with a more generalised disdain towards the racing industry and its wider societal ramifications”.

The “#Nuptothecup” movement is credited with much of this shift. It runs a website listing alternative activities and providing arguments against animal racing.

The parent organisation of this movement, the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses, runs a “deathwatch” cataloguing the number of racehorses killed in races: 175 in 2024-25. This has become an important issue for many.

Those who support the Melbourne Cup tend to rely on slightly opaque economic arguments: it employs people, generates revenue for Victoria and boosts business income because of tourism.

The Cup is still big business. But it’s not as big as it used to be, either culturally or even in dollar terms.

Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The term “black swan” refers to a shocking event on nobody’s radar until it actually happens. This has become a byword in risk analysis since a book called The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb was published in 2007. A frequently cited example is the 9/11 attacks.

Fewer people have heard of “grey swans”. Derived from Taleb’s work, grey swans are rare but more foreseeable events. That is, things we know could have a massive impact, but we don’t (or won’t) adequately prepare for.

COVID was a good example: precedents for a global pandemic existed, but the world was caught off guard anyway.

Although he sometimes uses the term, Taleb doesn’t appear to be a big fan of grey swans. He’s previously expressed frustration that his concepts are often misused, which can lead to sloppy thinking about the deeper issues of truly unforeseeable risks.

But it’s hard to deny there is a spectrum of predictability, and it’s easier to see some major shocks coming. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than in the world of artificial intelligence (AI).

Putting our eggs in one basket

Increasingly, the future of the global economy and human thriving has become tied to a single technological story: the AI revolution. It has turned philosophical questions about risk into a multitrillion-dollar dilemma about how we align ourselves with possible futures.

US tech company Nvidia, which dominates the market for AI chips, recently surpassed US$5 trillion (about A$7.7 trillion) in market value. The “Magnificent Seven” US tech stocks – Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla – now make up about 40% of the S&P 500 stock index.

The impact of a collapse for these companies – and a stock market bust – would be devastating at a global level, not just financially but also in terms of dashed hopes for progress.

AI’s grey swans

There are three broad categories of risk – beyond the economic realm – that could bring the AI euphoria to an abrupt halt. They’re grey swans because we can see them coming but arguably don’t (or won’t) prepare for them.

1. Security and terror shocks

AI’s ability to generate code, malicious plans and convincing fake media makes it a force multiplier for bad actors. Cheap, open models could help design drone swarms, toxins or cyber attacks. Deepfakes could spoof military commands or spread panic through fake broadcasts.

Arguably, the closest of these risks to a “white swan” – a foreseeable risk with relatively predictable consequences – stems from China’s aggression toward Taiwan.

The world’s biggest AI firms depend heavily on Taiwan’s semiconductor industry for the manufacture of advanced chips. Any conflict or blockade would freeze global progress overnight.

2. Legal shocks

Some AI firms have already been sued for allegedly using text and images scraped from the internet to train their models.

One of the best-known examples is the ongoing case of The New York Times versus OpenAI, but there are many similar disputes around the world.

If a major court were to rule that such use counts as commercial exploitation, it could unleash enormous damages claims from publishers, artists and brands.

A few landmark legal rulings could force major AI companies to press pause on developing their models further – effectively halting the AI build-out.

3. One breakthrough too many: innovation shocks

Innovation is usually celebrated, but for companies investing in AI, it could be fatal. New AI technology that autonomously manipulates markets (or even news that one is already doing so) would make current financial security systems obsolete.

And an advanced, open-source, free AI model could easily vaporise the profits of today’s industry leaders. We got a glimpse of this possibility in January’s DeepSeek dip, when details about a relatively cheaper, more efficient AI model developed in China caused US tech stocks to plummet.

Why we struggle to prepare for grey swans

Risk analysts, particularly in finance, often talk in terms of historical data. Statistics can give a reassuring illusion of consistency and control. But the future doesn’t always behave like the past.

The wise among us apply reason to carefully confirmed facts and are sceptical of market narratives.

Deeper causes are psychological: our minds encode things efficiently, often relying on one symbol to represent very complex phenomena.

It takes us a long time to remodel our representations of the world into believing a looming big risk is worth taking action over – as we’ve seen with the world’s slow response to climate change.

How can we deal with grey swans?

Staying aware of risks is important. But what matters most isn’t prediction. We need to design for a deeper sort of resilience that Taleb calls “antifragility”.

Taleb argues systems should be built to withstand – or even benefit from – shocks, rather than rely on perfect foresight.

For policymakers, this means ensuring regulation, supply chains and institutions are built to survive a range of major shocks. For individuals, it means diversifying our bets, keeping options open and resisting the illusion that history can tell us everything.

Above all, the biggest problem with the AI boom is its speed. It is reshaping the global risk landscape faster than we can chart its grey swans. Some may collide and cause spectacular destruction before we can react.

Cameron Shackell, Sessional Academic, School of Information Systems, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia’s education sector stocks have been going through it of late, but one Aussie stock picker tells us that it could be about to change.

Speaking on our Switzer Investing TV show this week, Shaw and Partner's Dawes says that news out of the Federal Government could spell a turnaround for a current and former market darling.

First up would be IDP Education (ASX:  IEL).

IDP Education, which helps international students apply to study abroad and runs English language testing services like IELTS, has had a rough ride. The stock has fallen about 22% in the past month and almost 65% over the past year as tighter government restrictions on student visas and a post-COVID slowdown in international student demand took their toll.

The company was once considered a market darling, buoyed by its global footprint and strong links with Australian universities. But with visa processing delays and stricter migration caps dampening new student arrivals, IDP’s earnings outlook has dimmed.

By contrast, smaller rival NextEd Education has been quietly surging. The ASX-listed training provider, which offers vocational and higher education courses to both local and international students, has gained 35% in the past month and an astonishing 125% over the past year. Investors appear to be betting that its smaller scale and domestic flexibility may help it benefit faster from any government shift toward encouraging international enrolments again.

According to Shore & Partners’ senior investment adviser Adam Dawes, both may feel the tailwind of a coming announcement:

“The government is looking to change the way they’re counting student visas and making it a little bit easier for student visas to come back into Australia,” he said on Switzer Investing TV. “That’s really going to benefit a market darling like IDP Education or a smaller one, NextEd Education. We expect an announcement from the government in the next couple of weeks.”

Dawes said he personally holds some NextEd stock and has been watching the space closely. “Don’t put the kitchen sink in there,” he cautioned, “but something hopefully — if something does happen — might turn those little stocks around and potentially might give us some upside.”

The long-term story for Australia’s education exports remains strong — it’s the country’s third-largest export industry, employing thousands and generating billions in economic activity. But it’s also a sector tightly linked to policy shifts and international sentiment.

For investors, Dawes’ comments are a reminder that keeping an eye on the news — particularly around policy and migration — can offer clues about where the next market moves might come from. Still, education stocks can be volatile, and as always, it pays to do your own research before taking a position.

As chatter about an “AI bubble” heats up, the somewhat emotional men leading Silicon Valley’s biggest artificial intelligence firms aren’t taking criticism lying down. OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Palantir’s Alex Karp both fired back this week at skeptics questioning the sustainability of the AI boom and the soaring valuations attached to it.

In a tense exchange with investor Brad Gerstner, Altman was pressed on how OpenAI — which reportedly brings in around US$13 billion in annual revenue — can support an eye-watering US$1.4 trillion in infrastructure and compute commitments.

“How can a company with $13 billion in revenues make $1.4 trillion of spend commitments?” Gerstner asked. “You’ve heard the criticism, Sam.”

Altman didn’t flinch. “If you want to sell your shares, I’ll find you a buyer."

"Enough.”

 

🚨 Brad Gerstner, an OpenAI investor, asks Sam Altman how a company with $13B in revenue can afford $1.4T in commitments. Altman’s reply? “Happy to find a buyer for your shares.” Translation: No answer. Very concerning. 🚩 pic.twitter.com/9jJKGw9QbF

— WallStreetPro (@wallstreetpro) November 2, 2025

He added (after an awkward pause), “I think there’s a lot of people who talk with a lot of breathless concern about our compute stuff or whatever that would be thrilled to buy shares. We could sell your shares or anybody else’s to some of the people who are making the most noise on Twitter about this very quickly.”

Meanwhile, over at surveillance monolith Palantir, CEO Alex Karp, presumably delivering results from inside the company's volcano-based lair, struck a more theatrical tone. Karp sat mocking those who sat out the rally in AI stocks. “We’re rocking along,” Karp said. “Please turn on the conventional television and see how unhappy those that didn’t invest in us are. Enjoy."

"Get some popcorn. They’re crying.”

He went on to praise Palantir’s loyal backers — especially small investors — painting them as partners in a bigger mission. “We are every day making this company better,” Karp said. “We’re doing it for this nation, for allied countries and, uh, also for — and I never really like the term retail investors — how about sane people who put up their own money and fight for us?”

 

Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s Q3 2025 earnings call message to retail shareholders 🍿🔮

“Turn on TV and see how unhappy those that didn’t invest in us are. Get some popcorn, they’re crying.” pic.twitter.com/HdY01fuMz7

— Jawwwn (@jawwwn_) November 3, 2025

Karp framed Palantir’s work as both patriotic and populist, saying the company’s technology supports “meritocracy, lethal technology vis-à-vis adversaries, and products that spread GDP to working class men and women by making their value creation higher.”

Enter the bear: 'Big Short' Burry bets big against bots

But not everyone’s convinced the AI story ends happily. Michael Burry, the hedge fund manager made famous by The Big Short, has taken a massive position against the sector’s biggest names. And as usual, he’s putting real money behind it.

New regulatory filings show Burry’s Scion Asset Management has purchased five million put options on Palantir Technologies (NASDAQ: PLTR) and one million put options on NVIDIA Corp. (NASDAQ: NVDA) — effectively betting that their share prices will fall.

Burry’s bearish bet on Palantir alone has a rough market value of almost a billion dollars, while his position against NVIDIA is worth about US$186 million.

It’s a bold move against two of the most hyped names in the AI trade: NVIDIA, the chipmaker powering the industry’s hardware boom, and Palantir, the software company riding a wave of government and defense contracts tied to artificial intelligence.

Burry’s latest moves suggest he sees echoes of past market manias in today’s AI frenzy — a conviction that’s familiar to anyone who watched him successfully predict the 2008 housing collapse.

However, as one Twitter user points out, Burry is famous for saying the sky is falling. And he's not always right: "Michael Burry has successfully predicted 18 of the last two recessions," Twitter joked.

Debate over Australia’s runaway house prices is set to focus on a specific target, with the Greens securing a Senate inquiry into the 50 per cent capital gains tax (CGT) discount that property investors have enjoyed for more than two decades.

This inquiry, which kicks off after a parallel investigation into generational housing inequality wraps up in mid-March, will focus on whether the CGT discount has fuelled property speculation and priced out the next generation of homebuyers. What’s under the microscope is the fundamental question of who benefits from Australia’s tax system, and whether current settings are actually making things worse for renters and would-be first-home buyers.

Since the Howard government introduced the 50% discount on capital gains tax payable for assets (like property) held for over 12 months, housing prices have been on a tear as investors look to cash in. It’s no exaggeration to say that from the early 2000s onward, residential property morphed from a stable savings vehicle into a turbocharged investment class.

Over the last 30 years, national dwelling values have jumped by roughly 382 per cent — about 5.4 per cent compound growth each year since the early 1990s, according to CoreLogic and the Reserve Bank. In the past three decades, the RBA has noted average annual house price growth of more than 7 per cent, though real (inflation-adjusted) growth has tapered in recent years as affordability pressure bites. And the median Australian home now commands north of $1 million, per ABS data for the June quarter 2025.

The CGT discount, bundled with negative gearing, have come under sustained criticism for skewing these outcomes. Both the Australia Institute and Grattan Institute point to evidence that the lion’s share of the benefits flow to wealthier investors, distorting investment decisions, fuelling price surges, and making it even tougher for young Australians to get a foothold in the market.

From the Greens’ point of view, the CGT discount isn’t just a technicality in the tax code—it’s a driving force behind Australia’s housing affordability crisis.

Senator Nick McKim, the party’s economic justice spokesperson, calls it “the most unfair and unequal tax break in the entire Commonwealth tax code, which is super-charging house prices and locking first homebuyers out.”

The fight for housing affordability

This isn’t just a debate for economists or tax wonks. Housing affordability is now front and centre for anyone under 40, and increasingly, for policymakers who can no longer ignore the political heat. In plain terms, the cost of buying a home has soared well beyond wage growth, with national median dwelling values now topping the million-dollar mark. The dream of home ownership is drifting further out of reach for younger Australians.

That’s why the timing of the newly-won Senate inquiry matters. It’s not happening in a vacuum—it lands as rental pressures intensify, generational divides widen, and public patience with the status quo starts to wear thin. For investors, it’s a reminder that the policy winds around property can shift, and not always in their favour.

The scope of this Senate inquiry is wide, but the focus is laser-sharp: tax settings and their role in the housing equation. First on the agenda is the sheer size and distribution of tax breaks tied to the CGT discount. The committee will scrutinise recent Parliamentary Budget Office analysis on how much revenue is forgone each year (billions, by most estimates) and who’s pocketing the most from it.

Then there’s the intersection with negative gearing, another hot-button policy that, combined with the CGT discount, shapes investor behaviour. The inquiry will look at how these settings influence housing investment, where the capital flows, and the knock-on effects for housing supply. Is the system genuinely encouraging investment in new housing stock, or just amplifying bidding wars for existing homes?

A critical question: is there a link between tax incentives and house-price inflation, particularly in hot capital-city markets and regional boom towns? The committee will test whether these policies are distorting markets, pushing up prices, and locking out first-home buyers.

Reform is on the table. The inquiry will examine potential changes—lowering the CGT discount, applying new conditions, or re-targeting concessions toward new-builds or longer-term ownership. The broader ambition is clear: to shape a fairer tax system that gives younger and aspiring homeowners a fighting chance.

But there’s a wider social lens too. The inquiry will probe how these tax policies link to intergenerational divides—not just in home ownership, but also in renting, homelessness, and the level of public investment in social housing.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is looking like a dead woman walking.

The latest Newspoll, which has Labor leading the Coalition 57–43% on the two-party vote, the Coalition’s primary vote down by 4 points to 24%, and Ley’s net approval at minus–33, is devastating for the opposition and Ley in particular.

Her net approval has dropped 13 points since the previous poll, with her ill-judged remarks about US Ambassador Kevin Rudd and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Joy Division T-shirt no doubt contributing to the markdown.

Ley would be in terrible shape any time with these figures, let alone when the Liberals and the Coalition are in an existential crisis over energy policy, making her challenges over the coming days dire.

The Liberals are split over the 2050 net-zero target, but now that the Nationals have dumped it, they are inevitably being dragged closer to the position of the minor party.

Ley in the past said she wanted to see net zero reached as soon as possible. Now she will struggle to have the Liberals retain any commitment to it, even as an aspiration.

A few weeks ago, Angus Taylor, her main leadership rival, was said to be willing to go along with a compromise that involved net zero in some form, despite personal opposition to it.

Now, Taylor is said to be close to the Nationals’ position.

The Liberal moderates, especially the Liberals’ deputy Senate leader, Anne Ruston, are fighting a rearguard action. Ruston reportedly said in a Sunday meeting of senior Liberals that the Nationals were again putting a gun to the heads of the Liberals. Asked about this on Sky on Monday, Ruston said she didn’t talk about private meetings, but did not deny the report.

Another moderate, NSW Senator Andrew Bragg, told Sky “we should do net zero better than Labor’s done it”.

“I think, as I’ve said before, that you can get to net zero at some stage this century.”

Some moderates would be happy enough to see the Coalition split; so would some Nationals.

It’s not just Ley who’s in a weak leadership position – so is the Nationals’ David Littleproud, who has been pulled to the right by his own troops.

Most of the Nationals have never been keen on net zero, but the spike in One Nation’s vote in recent polls – a massive 15% in Newspoll – is concentrating their minds on the danger of being outflanked on the right.

It would take an opposition leader of enormous authority to find a way through this chaos, and Ley carries little or no authority.

No one can criticise her work rate, or her attempts to tap into the community. She tells her personal story, that of a varied life, as she tries to get known. But she lacks a strong framework of political beliefs to project. She comes across as unmoored.

Ley’s multiple enemies and critics want – and mostly expect – to see her removed. But they don’t want that to happen now. Ditching the Liberals’ first female leader six months in would look very bad, a caricature of a party with a “woman problem”.

With her opponents thinking it would be indecently early to move against her, Ley will be left in limbo. Then at some point, the Liberals will change leaders and quite probably remain as badly off.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Kardashians are back with a new season of their reality series The Kardashians on Disney Plus.

As a researcher of consumer psychology, I have written about consumer neuroscience and how brands and media shape behaviour and self-perception. Watching The Kardashians through that lens reveals more than entertainment. It exposes how luxury and aspiration are woven into identity and sold back to us as self-worth.

The first episode is a materialistic feast. There are close-ups of Dior and Chanel handbags and belts, diamond jewellery and a house sign that reads: “Need money for Birkin.” The Kardashians drive luxury cars, wear designer sunglasses indoors and chat about their Saint Laurent outfits.

Even the camera lingers on the glittering shop windows of Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, home to some of the world’s most exclusive designer stores, though no one is actually shopping. If you haven’t seen it, you probably get the idea. In the Kardashian universe, the unspoken motto seems to be: “To have is to be.”

In their world, material possessions are woven into identity and presented as something to aspire to. But is it really all that glamorous?

Overconsumption can lower our wellbeing. Young people, in particular, often turn to excessive consumption to fit in, boost confidence or gain prestige. Teenagers who idolise others for their wealth or possessions are more likely to struggle with their sense of identity later in life.

Research shows that children and adolescents who place strong importance on material possessions often struggle to develop a clear sense of identity. Without learning who they are beyond what they own, they may find it harder to build lasting self-worth and life satisfaction.

Rather than helping us define who we are, possessions can get in the way. They can obscure or distort our sense of self, leading us to equate value with visibility. On top of that, materialism is linked to depression, likely because people often fail to achieve the identity and happiness they hope consumption will bring.

The Kardashian-Jenners have a massive following. Sisters Kylie, Kim and Khloé each have more than 300 million Instagram followers, a clear sign of their influence.

When we admire someone, we naturally compare ourselves to them, a process known as social comparison. It helps us judge where we stand, whether we are better or worse off than others. In this context, owning the same bag, car or outfit becomes a way to measure worth, since possessions often symbolise status and make the buyer feel closer to the celebrity, as if buying into their world.

Social comparison is known to drive materialism. It can start to feel like a competition to “catch up” with those we look up to through conspicuous consumption.

When we fail to keep up with the Kardashians, we may feel inadequate, even if we know deep down we were never in the same race. The Kardashian brand cleverly capitalises on this very idea.

The original series title, Keeping Up With the Kardashians, puns on the human instinct to compare and compete. This dynamic fuels not only the show’s popularity but also its beauty, fashion and lifestyle empires, which invite fans to buy into the brand both literally and symbolically.

You might think the solution is simply to choose better role models, but it is not that straightforward. People often compare themselves to others without realising it, automatically relying on social comparison when processing information about other people. This tendency does not stop at television.

Social media platforms intensify the same dynamic, giving us endless opportunities to measure our worth against curated snapshots of other people’s lives. Research from 2024 shows that heavy exposure to idealised social-media content is associated with increased materialism, lower life satisfaction and greater stress.

Another study found that engagement with influencer content featuring luxury goods can trigger upward social comparison – the tendency to compare ourselves with people we see as better off – leading to feelings of envy and a stronger urge to buy similar products in order to close that gap.

From influencer “unboxings,” where people film themselves opening luxury purchases, to filtered “day in the life” videos, social media users are constantly exposed to lifestyles that appear effortlessly perfect. When we scroll through feeds full of luxury, beauty and success, we can become more materialistic without ever consciously deciding to.

Seeing the extreme wealth of people like the Kardashians surrounded by luxury can spark feelings of envy and relative deprivation, leading to dissatisfaction with our own lives. That dissatisfaction can then trigger compulsive shopping as we try to soothe those uncomfortable emotions and project wealth ourselves.

Unsurprisingly, compulsive buying is closely tied to materialism. If you value possessions and feel envy toward others, you are far more likely to buy impulsively in an attempt to catch up.

Watching glamorous lifestyles where people seem to have it all can be fun escapism, but it also blurs the line between aspiration and insecurity. Shows like The Kardashians offer a fantasy of perfection that few can match, yet they invite us to measure ourselves against it.

In the end, the pursuit of luxury may leave us feeling emptier, not richer. After all, when having becomes being, it is worth asking what is left of the self once the shopping stops.

Cathrine Jansson-Boyd, Professor of Consumer Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This week on Switzer Investing TV, Paul Rickard sits down with three experts to tackle the hottest topics in markets and money.

Adam Dawes (Shaw & Partners) breaks down what’s driving the action in banks after Westpac’s profit surprise, gives his view on CSL and the student visa shakeup, and shares where the real opportunities are in rare earths and lithium stocks.

Peter Switzer reveals his “Triple B” investment portfolio approach, discusses how to find quality companies at the right price, and explains why Qantas and Pro Medicus are on his radar for long-term growth.

Steve Hui (iFLYflat) – the points whisperer – explains how frequent flyer reward schemes really work, what the Reserve Bank’s changes could mean for your points, and his top tips for earning and using points to actually get those coveted business class seats.

Jump straight to each guest with the timecodes below:

00:00 — Adam Dawes (Shaw & Partners)

13:09 — Peter Switzer (Switzer Report)

21:44 — Steve Hui (iFLYflat)

Don’t forget to subscribe for more expert interviews, market analysis, and practical tips to grow your wealth every week!

Here’s a big one for the Aussie tech scene. Local-born AI and datacentre player IREN has just signed a deal worth nearly US$10 billion with Microsoft. Yes, billion with a “b.”

The five-year agreement means IREN will be providing Microsoft with access to a massive stack of NVIDIA GB300 graphics chips — the kind of hardware that powers modern AI models and cloud systems. Think of it as IREN renting out serious computing horsepower so Microsoft can keep up with the global AI arms race.

The GPUs will be rolled out in stages through 2026 at IREN’s enormous Texas datacentre campus, which can handle enough power to light up a small city. To make it all work, IREN’s also doing a US$5.8 billion deal with Dell to get the gear in place — everything from the chips themselves to the high-speed networks and cooling systems that keep them from melting down.

Microsoft’s kicking in a 20% prepayment, which is a nice cash boost, and IREN says it’ll cover the rest of the costs through existing funds, customer payments and financing.

IREN’s co-founder Daniel Roberts called the partnership a milestone, saying it proves the company’s AI cloud setup can stand alongside the biggest players in the world. Over at Microsoft, Jonathan Tinter said IREN’s mix of renewable energy, datacentre control and sheer scale made them a “strategic partner.” Translation: this is the real deal.

Investors certainly think so — IREN’s stock (NASDAQ: IREN) jumped hard after the news broke. And I imagine it's set to go even higher in the coming days if recent billion-dollar data deals are anything to go by (but what do I know, do your own research).

What makes this especially interesting is the timing. Around the world, AI and cloud deals are getting bigger by the week. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Oracle — they’re all throwing billions into GPUs and data centres just to keep up. And it’s nice, for once, to see an Aussie outfit in the middle of the action, not watching from the sidelines.

The Coalition’s primary vote slumped four points to a record low 24% in the latest Newspoll, while One Nation was up four points to a record high 15%. One Nation also surged to 15% in an Essential poll.

The national Newspoll, conducted October 27–30 from a sample of 1,265 voters, gave Labor a 57–43% lead over the Coalition, unchanged from the previous Newspoll in early October.

Primary votes were 36% for Labor (down one point), 24% for the Coalition (down four points), 15% for One Nation (up four points), 11% for the Greens (down one point) and 14% for all others (up two points).

Analyst Kevin Bonham said the poll set or matched a few records:

• the worst Coalition primary vote ever in a public national poll
• a tie for the highest One Nation vote in a national poll, matching last week’s Essential poll
• the lowest combined vote for Labor and the Coalition in Newspoll history.

The Coalition’s previous worst primary vote was 27% in a mid-September Newspoll.

In the new Newspoll, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s net approval was down four points to -5, with 51% of voters dissatisfied with his performance and 46% satisfied.

Opposition leader Sussan Ley’s net approval slumped 13 points to -33; she has dropped 24 points since August.

Albanese led Ley by 54–27% as better prime minister, compared to 52–30% in early October.

This is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll with a trend line. Labor easily won the 2025 election, despite his ratings being negative at the time.

Australia may be on a trajectory where One Nation overtakes the Coalition to become the main right-wing party. Far-right parties have already overtaken centre-right parties in some European countries.

In the United Kingdom, the Election Maps UK poll aggregate has the far-right Reform party leading with 30.5%, followed by Labour at 19.1%, the Conservatives at 17.5%, the Liberal Democrats at 13.4% and the Greens at 12.6%. With the UK’s first-past-the-post voting system, Reform would win a majority of House of Commons seats on this polling.

Even if One Nation overtakes the Coalition in Australia, the Australian Labor Party has a far higher primary vote than UK Labour. I expect Coalition preferences would favour One Nation, but as long as the combined vote for Labor, the Greens and left-leaning others holds up, One Nation wouldn’t win an Australian election.

Essential poll: One Nation surges to 15%

The national Essential poll, conducted October 22–26 from a sample of 1,041 voters, gave Labor a 50–44% lead over the Coalition by respondent preferences, including undecided voters. Labor’s lead was 51–44% in late September.

Primary votes were 36% for Labor (up one point), 26% for the Coalition (down one point), 15% for One Nation (up two points), 9% for the Greens (down two points), 8% for all others (up one point) and 6% undecided (steady).

By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would lead the Coalition by a more than 55–45% margin.

Albanese’s net approval was up three points in the Essential poll to +1, with 45% of respondents approving of his performance and 44% disapproving. Ley’s net approval was down two points to -11.

On Albanese’s October 20 meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington, 37% thought it was good for Australia’s long-term interests, 18% bad and 26% said it would have no real impact.

On the direction the Liberals should take to provide an alternative government, 48% of total respondents said they should adopt more progressive positions, 24% more conservative positions and 28% thought they should maintain their current positions. Among only Coalition voters, 49% were in favour of more progressive positions, compared to 29% for more conservative.

Ley was thought best to lead the Liberals by 13% of total respondents, followed by Andrew Hastie and Jacinta Price at 10% each, with 42% unsure. Among only Coalition voters, Ley had 22%, Hastie 20% and Price 13%.

Overall, respondents supported Australia’s target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 by a 44–27% margin. Among only Coalition voters, this support shrank to 38%, with 35% opposed.

Labor has big lead in NSW DemosAU poll

A New South Wales state poll by DemosAU and Premier National, conducted October 17–22 from a sample of 1,016 voters, gave Labor a 59–41% lead over the Coalition (compared to Labor’s lead of 54.3–45.7% at the March 2023 election).

Primary votes were 37% for Labor, 30% for the Coalition, 13% for the Greens and 20% for all others.

The next NSW election will be in March 2027. Before the May federal election, Labor had been struggling in the NSW polls, but the party has surged since then.

Labor Premier Chris Minns led the Liberals’ Mark Speakman by 44–25% as preferred premier in the poll. Cost of living was rated the most important issue by 36% of respondents, followed by housing affordability on 25%.

Upper house voting intentions were 30% for Labor, 21% for the Coalition, 15% for One Nation, 13% for the Greens, 5% for Family First and 3% each for Animal Justice and Legalise Cannabis.

Half of the 42 upper house seats will be up for election in 2027, using statewide proportional representation with preferences.

Polls of upper house voting intentions are rare in Australia and typically understate major party support. It’s unrealistic for the combined vote for the Coalition and Labor in the upper house to be 16 points below the lower house figure.

Queensland DemosAU poll has solid LNP lead

A Queensland state poll by DemosAU and Premier National, conducted October 13–20 from a sample of 1,006 respondents, gave the Liberal National Party (LNP) a 54–46% lead over Labor, a one-point gain for Labor since a July DemosAU poll.

Primary votes were 37% for the LNP (down three points), 29% for Labor (up one point), 14% for One Nation (up two points), 12% for the Greens (down one point) and 8% for all others (up one point).

LNP Premier David Crisafulli led Labor’s Steven Miles as preferred premier by a 44–32% margin.

On the biggest issue facing Queensland, 30% said lack of affordable housing, 27% cost of living and 20% crime. On the performance of the government on key issues, the LNP had net ratings of -36 on housing and -38 on cost of living, but a much better rating on crime (-2).

A recent Resolve Queensland poll had primary votes that implied a narrow Labor lead after preferences. This DemosAU poll is far better for the LNP.

Midterm elections in Argentina and Trump’s ratings slide

In Argentina’s midterm elections on October 26, far-right President Javier Milei’s Liberty Advances party made decisive gains in both chambers of the legislature, though it still remains short of a majority. I covered these elections for The Poll Bludger.

In the United States, Trump’s net approval rating in analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls has dropped to -11.8 (with 54.6% of Americans disapproving of his performance, compared to 42.9% approving). This is down 4.2 points since October 20.

Trump’s falling approval ratings could be linked to the ongoing government shutdown in the US, which began on October 1 and is now poised to become the longest in US history, breaking the 35-day record set during Trump’s first term.

Voters will head to the polls on Tuesday in the US in several key elections, including the governorship in Virginia and New Jersey and the mayoral race in New York City. Democratic front-runner Zohran Mamdani has led independent candidate and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the New York City race, though the polls have tightened in recent days.

I will follow the election results for The Poll Bludger.

Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.