The Alliance for Gambling Reform is marking the milestone by urging immediate movement on recommendations from a 2023 parliamentary inquiry into online gambling, chaired by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy. The review laid out 31 proposed changes, including a sweeping ban on gambling ads and the creation of a national watchdog, yet none have been put in place.

Advocates say the lack of action has allowed gambling promotions to remain deeply woven into sport broadcasts and digital platforms, despite mounting evidence of harm.

In its statement, the Alliance said: “1,000 days of inaction on gambling reform must stop,” arguing that the continued delay has allowed gambling promotions to remain embedded across sport and digital media.

A joint open letter sent to the prime minister, backed by dozens of health and community organisations, echoes that urgency. “One thousand days since the Murphy Report parliamentary inquiry into online gambling, the need for equally bold action on gambling has never been clearer.”

New data cited in the letter paints a concerning picture of youth exposure. “New research reveals that 600,000 young people under 18 are already gambling, spending $18 million annually. If gambling were a sport, it would be among the most popular sports of Australia’s youth.”

Alliance calls for urgent government gambling reforms amid rising youth harm concerns in Australia

Advocates argue the government has already shown it can move quickly when needed, pointing to recent legislation restricting social media access for younger teens. “Last year, the government made history with a world-first social media ban for under-16s, showing it is willing to hold corporate giants accountable to protect children. Yet children continue to see gambling ads on those same screens.”

They warn that repeated exposure carries long-term risks. “Early exposure to gambling advertising primes children for a lifetime of harm, driven by companies whose profits depend on addiction.”

Many of the reasons we’ve received are heartbreaking. Stories of families impacted by gambling harm. Young people growing up surrounded by gambling ads. People asking why things still haven’t changed.

— Alliance for Gambling Reform (@ReformGambling) March 22, 2026

“As a nation, we lose more to gambling than any other country on earth – $32 billion every year. Behind that number lie financial ruin, family violence, and lives lost to suicide,” the letter adds.

Recent reporting has shown that the government has hesitated on implementing a full advertising ban, despite earlier signals it was under serious consideration. At the same time, a group of former prime ministers has publicly argued that Australia faces a deep-rooted gambling problem requiring stronger federal intervention.

Signatories are pushing for all 31 recommendations to be enacted in full, including “Banning all gambling ads on all broadcast and online platforms so children are no longer exposed to gambling on their screens,” and “Establishing a national regulator with a mandate to reduce harm.”

The Alliance says incremental steps will not address the scale of the issue. “Every day of delay means more harm,” the group said.

The letter closes by framing the moment as a leadership test. “We ask the government to again show leadership, to build on the social media ban and to take decisive action to protect our kids against a gambling industry that is targeting them.”

Featured image: Alliance for Gambling Reform

The post Australia gambling reform delay sparks youth harm fears appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Indeed, reports of the demise of the stock broker in your Rolodex are being greatly exaggerated by these recent – and admittedly large and lucrative – market bets against them, based on my chats with the actual humans who perform this vital market function.

Let’s start with what’s happening on the ground as AI disruption crushes shares of Schwab, down 13% in just a few days before bouncing back a bit; Ditto for LPL another brokerage firm that links investors up with its stable independent financial advisers.

Reports of the demise of the stock broker in your Rolodex are being greatly exaggerated by large and lucrative market bets against them. Jack Forbes / NY Post Design

Raymond James, a traditional “wire house” that employs around 8,000 brokers has seen similar declines in the share price, all on the bet that people with money to invest will give up their broker because artificial intelligence can find value cheaper and faster.

That’s the market bet; the reality on the ground is far different. My sources tell me they haven’t lost a single customer during the AI inspired broker-stock rout. In fact, they’ve seen more engagement with their clients about figuring out how to trade through the AI tumult.

More From Charles Gasparino

“I’ve had zero people leave,” said one broker who asked not to be named. “My clients are pretty wealthy so I can’t imagine they’re just going to trust AI with tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Good point. Maybe someday AI might run the world, but for now established wealth isn’t taking any chances with an algo. And established wealth — people with many millions to invest – are now the key customers of the brokerage business.

You can’t get into the door of a big brokerage firm without dangling $1 million in cash since most of the wealth advisers work on a fee-only basis; the more money you give them to throw around, the more money they make.

Brokerage firms such as Schwab have seen shares drop due to AI fears rattling the industry. REUTERS

These people are not just going to hand their investments to AI. When millions are at stake, you want a human picking up the phone – not some algorithmic bot telling you why you just lost a boatload of money.

Plus, brokers themselves are using AI to get a feel of markets and investing trends. “This will definitely help my guys,” said the CEO of one large brokerage firm. “We see AI as a plus.”

History also tells you that AI won’t be replacing traditional wealth management. Its precursor, for those of us old enough to remember, emerged during the mid to late 1990s internet boom when the online brokerage portal was supposed to revolutionize investing.

Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet

Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday.

Thanks for signing up!

Companies like E*Trade, Ameritrade and Schwab’s site were destined to put the Merrill Lynch, and its “thundering herd” of stock brokers out of business. We framed it as the end of an era, a “Watershed on Wall Street” where humans were going to be replaced by dot-com. 

And guess what? It never happened. Merrill responded by creating its own online brokerage, a story I broke in the Wall Street Journal. Like the rest of the brokerage houses, it used the technology to its advantage; brokers could focus on big-money clients while pushing average joes to the online trading venue and a call center.

The reason the internet never replaced the human is probably the same reason why AI won’t either; artificial intelligence might be great for writing a form letter, or finding a Chinese restaurant near your condo. But rich people aren’t going to trust it with their life savings.

The post AI fears are hammering shares of brokers like Charles Schwab and LPL — but the humans aren’t panicking appeared first on Our Story Insight.

That, the bears say, shows faltering confidence in US assets. They expect the jitters will soon ripple through and overwhelm supposedly “euphoric” stock markets, reversing the rebound from April’s low. 

Wrong. Currency swings say nothing about the stock market’s direction – simply nothing. And 2025’s greenback weakness isn’t all that unusual anyway. Let’s thumb through a few of these notes in more detail.

Currency swings say nothing about the stock market’s direction – simply nothing. And 2025’s greenback weakness isn’t all that unusual anyway. AFP via Getty Images

Whatever the dollar does, investors worry. When it’s weak, they fear it will make imports pricier and stoke inflation. When it’s strong, it supposedly saps corporate profits on exports. A strong dollar also can raise the risk of debt defaults by developing nations that borrow in dollars. So should we worry about one, all, or none of the above?

Consider that US stocks rose in 44 of 56 calendar years since 1968. Those up years were split near-evenly between years when the dollar strengthened (24) and years when it weakened (20). In the years when stocks fell, the greenback rose in six and fell in six. Do you see any pattern there? Any reason to fear or cheer dollar strength or weakness? Is six worth more than half a dozen, or vice versa?

Even over shorter periods, there is no identifiable relationship. Yes, you can cherry-pick brief periods where a weak dollar panic drove a stock market correction. But for each of those, I can point to the opposite, like late 2004 when rampant weak dollar fears coincided with a steep Q4 S&P 500 rally.

Overall, this century’s weekly correlation between the dollar and US stocks is statistically only a slight variance from no correlation at all. So the bucking buck doesn’t buck stocks reliably in either direction.

Consider that US stocks rose in 44 of 56 calendar years since 1968. Those up years were split near-evenly between years when the dollar strengthened (24) and years when it weakened (20).

Why does all of this make sense, upon closer inspection? A weak dollar may make America’s exports more competitive overseas, but it makes imported components costlier — and vice versa for a strong dollar. Also, corporate leaders with overseas supply chains and customer bases are superbly versed in currency hedging.

Further, there is nothing notably unique about 2025’s weak dollar. Investors focused on fear need to zoom out some. A glance back before 2025 reveals the dollar has been sitting at levels decried as “too strong” for years. Heck, today’s level is stronger against a trade-weighted currency basket than 58% of months since 1970.

Whatever the dollar does, investors worry. When it’s weak, they fear it will make imports pricier and stoke inflation. When it’s strong, it supposedly saps corporate profits on exports. Christopher Sadowski

Perhaps you tie the dollar’s weakness to politics. US politicians traditionally talk up a strong dollar’s supposed benefits. And now? President Trump recently said, “Well, you know, I’m a person that likes a strong dollar, but a weak dollar makes you a hell of a lot more money.”

His nominee for the Fed’s temporary opening, Stephen Miran, outspokenly favors not only dollar weakness but also eliminating the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

In fact, currency markets are treating Trump as a traditional Republican. Since Richard Nixon’s 1969 inaugural year, the dollar weakened in 75% of Republican presidents’ terms, strengthening on average only in their fourth years. Ronald Reagan’s first term is the exception, but that’s it. Further, 2025’s weakness through July (-7.9%) parallels Trump’s first term though July 2017 (-9.1%). Why fear something routine?

In fact, currency markets are treating Trump as a traditional Republican. Since Richard Nixon’s 1969 inaugural year, the dollar weakened in 75% of Republican presidents’ terms, strengthening on average only in their fourth years.

Usually, those fearing dollar weakness miss a basic truth: Currencies trade in pairs. Over time, developed nation currencies balance out in what look like lake ripples. Over the past 40 years, the buck sine-waves around tight ranges against all of them except Japan – and even thereto for 35 years. They even out in time – and they will this time, too.

So let others worry over dollar weakness – while you continue to enjoy this global bull market.

Ken Fisher is the founder and executive chairman of Fisher Investments, a four-time New York Times bestselling author, and regular columnist in 21 countries globally.

The post The truth about the US dollar’s weakness — and fears of its growing threat to US stocks appeared first on Our Story Insight.

The New York-based powerhouse founded by billionaire David E. Shaw — whose algorithm-driven trades made it the most profitable hedge fund in 2024, raking in $11.1 billion for investors, according to Institutional Investor magazine — has grown remarkably quiet of late when it comes to diversity, equality, and inclusion, sources said.

D.E. Shaw did not respond to The Post’s emailed request for comment for this article.

Billionaire David E. Shaw, who has a long history of donating to Democrats, founded the money-spinning firm in 1988. YouTube/WebsEdge Science

The company, which gave a young Jeff Bezos his big break in finance before he set up Amazon in 1994, has promoted DEI policies for years.

A June 2019 memo obtained by The Post that was written by managing director Eddie Fishman encouraged staffers “to display their pronouns” that “align with their gender identity” in their emails so managers could “foster an inclusive culture.”

The June 2019 memo. Obtained by the NY Post

But a review by The Post of archived pages from D.E. Shaw’s website shows that its DEI language has since been scrubbed, including references to how the firm “actively promotes LGBTQ+ inclusion.” Now, its site merely says it’s seeking “talented people with diverse perspectives and backgrounds.”

One insider said top brass at the Wall Street firm — whose 74-year-old namesake helped bankroll the presidential campaigns of Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — made “a strategic move” to steer away from full-throated wokeness over fear of catching the attention of the White House.

“There was some concern that aggressive policies would make the firm a target for reprisals by the current administration,” the source said. “And we were about as aggressive as you could get.”

“They were going 100 miles an hour on DEI in public, only then to drop to zero and fall off a cliff,’ said another staffer.

“The communications have certainly been ratcheted back,” claimed a third employee. “It’s not as in-your-face as it once was.”

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos met his ex-wife Mackenzie Scott while working at D.E. Shaw. The then-couple quit in 1994 when Bezos set up the online retail giant. REUTERS

Top DOJ lawyer Harmeet K. Dhillon issued a stern warning to corporate America in a Senate hearing on July 23: “The goal is clear: either DEI will end on its own, or we will kill it.” CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

D.E. Shaw’s retreat follows a Supreme Court ruling last month and a White House-led crackdown on corporate DEI policies, which critics say lower performance standards and foster so-called reverse discrimination.

Top Department of Justice lawyer Harmeet K. Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, issued the starkest of warnings to corporate America during a testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 23.

“The goal is clear: either DEI will end on its own, or we will kill it,” the top Trump administration official said.

Nevertheless, five sources with direct knowledge of the matter told The Post that executives at the company — founded by computer scientist Shaw in 1988 after he did stints at Stanford, Columbia and Morgan Stanley — are still paying lip service to wokeness to the rank and file.

“They have said internally that our commitment and programs regarding DEI are not changing,” said another senior D.E. Shaw source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“They have themselves in a bit of a bind. They went hardcore DEI to appear progressive and cater to liberal recruits,” a veteran of the firm added. “Internally, they are putting a brave face on it. But they are now very worried that the administration will start looking into them.”

President Trump has ordered the DOJ to crack down on the DEI policies that flourished under the Biden-Harris administration. Bloomberg via Getty Images

The woke job placements mysteriously disappeared from the DE Shaw website after The Post approached the firm for comment about its DEI policies. deshaw.com

Fearing Trump’s ire, the hedge fund appears to have axed its “inclusive” Bridge internship. The program was set up in 2016 for “historically underrepresented” groups in finance.

The ‘woke’ job placement schemes still featured prominently on D.E. Shaw’s website last week. But they have now been deleted after The Post approached the firm for comment on their DEI policies on Friday.

According to an archived version of D.E. Shaw’s Campus website — an online recruitment portal — the firm created three programs aimed at diverse recruitment. Its “Discovery” program was “designed for students who self-identify as women”, while “Momentum” was aimed at those “who self-identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community

D.E. Shaw also had a program called “Latitude,” which was “for students who self-identify as Native American or Alaska Native, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.”

One scheme called Momentum was open to students who self-identify as part of the “LGBTQIA+ community.” deshaw.com

Other Wall Street giants including Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Bank of America and Jamie Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase have scaled back their public commitments to DEI. The Post reported exclusively how Goldman decided to give woke the boot — on its website at least — when its partners met with CEO David Solomon in Miami in February.

The Post attempted to speak to additional employees at D.E. Shaw, but they declined, citing fears of retribution from D.E. Shaw’s management, which has even been known to weigh in on whether employees can attend social gatherings with people who have left the company.

“It is definitely something that people are talking about at the firm,” a separate person briefed on the matter told The Post.

“The irony is that the whole firm is still very white and very male,” said another source.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers is one of the biggest names among the DE Shaw alumni. He served both the second Clinton and first Obama administrations. Getty Images

The hedge fund’s leadership team counts two females, Alexis Halaby and managing director Anne Dinning, amongst its ranks.

The firm last made major headlines in 2022 when it was forced to pay a $52 million defamation settlement to one of its former rising stars, Dan Michalow, after an arbitration panel found that it had falsely accused him of sexual misconduct.

Michalow, who always denied any wrongdoing, left the company not long after the start of the #MeToo movement, where hundreds of rich and powerful men were accused of sexual misdeeds.

Aside from Amazon’s Bezos and his ex-wife, Mackenzie Scott, D.E. Shaw’s most famous alum is arguably Lawrence Summers.

He served as treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and as director of Barack Obama’s National Economic Council.

The post Left-wing hedge fund D.E. Shaw fears ‘reprisals’ over DEI from Trump administration: sources appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Shoppers are expected to spend around $23.6 billion this year, compared with $22.4 billion estimated last year, the trade body’s survey showed, with discount stores once again poised to be the top destination for Easter shopping.

Prices of eggs, traditionally used for Easter decor and games, have nearly doubled from last year as avian influenza wiped out millions of hens and led to a shortage of eggs in February.

Shoppers are expected to spend around $23.6 billion this year, compared with $22.4 billion estimated last year Getty Images

Retail bellwether Walmart left out eggs from its yearly Easter promotional meal kit, shared late last month at a lower price than 2024.

President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on several trade partners have also raised fears of a recession, casting a pall on consumer sentiment in the United States.

However, retailers such as Target and dollar stores that enjoyed an upbeat December quarter thanks to robust Christmas spending have said consumers are expected to shop for Easter with similar interest.

“As we witnessed throughout the pandemic, holidays such as Easter are especially meaningful for Americans during times of uncertainty. And we are continuing to see that trend as consumers prioritize their Easter celebrations this year,” said Katherine Cullen, NRF vice president of industry and consumer insights.

This year, Walmart left out eggs from its yearly Easter promotional meal kit. Walmart

“From other holidays NRF tracks, we know that consumers who are feeling constrained by higher prices or the economy may cut back in other areas, look to sales or find less costly substitutes in order to preserve their traditional celebrations.”

NRF’s forecast said a majority of consumers were expected to shop inspired by tradition to buy Easter-related items, while 36% were also expected to be influenced by sales and promotions.

Candy, food and gifts are likely to be at the top of shopping lists this Easter, with consumers seen spending a total of $7.4 billion on food, $3.8 billion on gifts and $3.3 billion on candy, the report said.

The post Easter spending forecast to climb 5% despite high inflation, recession fears appeared first on Our Story Insight.