Search results

High-stakes accountability and continuous multi-faceted pressures of the principalship require leaders to develop a broad range of personal qualities including resilience and personal vitality. Scant research exists on what happens to school principals when careers abruptly and involuntarily end, and the purpose of this paper is sought to hear principals’ accounts of their experiences and to identify whether these personal qualities assist recovery and career re-identification.

A collaborative English and Australian study of former principals aimed to evaluate effects of involuntary job loss from their own perspectives. In total, 12 case studies involved one-on-one interviews during a two-year period revealing impact of job loss, coping strategies, resilience and personal vitality.

Successful management indicators were found: personal qualities, including the ability to retain a perspective and big picture view of career journey; an enduring love of teaching; health and fitness; study; getting another suitable post; and psychological and medical support. Time taken to regain pre-existing levels of personal vitality varied significantly based on resilience and contextual circumstances, whilst psychological and social support from family and professional colleagues was invaluable for recovery.

This international study presents an original insight into effects of principals’ sudden job loss – a perspective which has imposing pastoral relevance for employing authorities, professional associations and collegial networks. Aspiring and current principals may feel, “There but for the grace of God, go I”, and it is they who may need ultimately to be prepared for what is an increasingly common occurrence in schools across the world.

The institution of food and cookery exhibitions and the dissemination of practical knowledge with respect to cookery by means of lectures and demonstrations are excellent things in their way. But while it is important that better and more scientific attention should be generally given to the preparation of food for the table, it must be admitted to be at least equally important to insure that the food before it comes into the hands of the expert cook shall be free from adulteration, and as far as possible from impurity,—that it should be, in fact, of the quality expected. Protection up to a certain point and in certain directions is afforded to the consumer by penal enactments, and hitherto the general public have been disposed to believe that those enactments are in their nature and in their application such as to guarantee a fairly general supply of articles of tolerable quality. The adulteration laws, however, while absolutely necessary for the purpose of holding many forms of fraud in check, and particularly for keeping them within certain bounds, cannot afford any guarantees of superior, or even of good, quality. Except in rare instances, even those who control the supply of articles of food to large public and private establishments fail to take steps to assure themselves that the nature and quality of the goods supplied to them are what they are represented to be. The sophisticator and adulterator are always with us. The temptations to undersell and to misrepresent seem to be so strong that firms and individuals from whom far better things might reasonably be expected fall away from the right path with deplorable facility, and seek to save themselves, should they by chance be brought to book, by forms of quibbling and wriggling which are in themselves sufficient to show the moral rottenness which can be brought about by an insatiable lust for gain. There is, unfortunately, cheating to be met with at every turn, and it behoves at least those who control the purchase and the cooking of food on the large scale to do what they can to insure the supply to them of articles which have not been tampered with, and which are in all respects of proper quality, both by insisting on being furnished with sufficiently authoritative guarantees by the vendors, and by themselves causing the application of reasonably frequent scientific checks upon the quality of the goods.

The purpose of this paper is to derive a new option pricing model for options on futures calendar spreads. Calendar spread option volume has been low and a more precise model to price them could lead to lower bid-ask spreads as well as more accurate marking to market of open positions.

The new option pricing model is a two-factor model with the futures price and the convenience yield as the two factors. The key assumption is that convenience follows arithmetic Brownian motion. The new model and alternative models are tested using corn futures prices. The testing considers both the accuracy of distributional assumptions and the accuracy of the models’ predictions of historical payoffs.

Panel unit root tests fail to reject the unit root null hypothesis for historical calendar spreads and thus they support the assumption of convenience yield following arithmetic Brownian motion. Option payoffs are estimated with five different models and the relative performance of the models is determined using bias and root mean squared error. The new model outperforms the four other models; most of the other models overestimate actual payoffs.

The model is parameterized using historical data due to data limitations although future research could consider implied parameters. The model assumes that storage costs are constant and so it cannot separate between negative convenience yield and mismeasured storage costs.

The over 30-year search for a calendar spread pricing model has not produced a satisfactory model. Current models that do not assume cointegration will overprice calendar spread options. The model used by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for marking to market of open positions is shown to work poorly. The model proposed here could be used as a basis for automated trading on calendar spread options as well as marking to market of open positions.

The model is new. The empirical work supports both the model’s assumptions and its predictions as being more accurate than competing models.

While the concept of legal culture has been receiving a growing attention from scholars, this research often overemphasizes the similarity of the opinions held by different segments of population. Furthermore, the relationship of migration and the change of legal-cultural attitudes has not received particular attention. Drawing on 70 in-depth interviews with the immigrants of the early 1990s from the former Soviet Union to Israel and the secular Israeli Jews, this chapter provides a comprehensive account of the various aspects of legal culture of these groups. The second important finding is the persistence of the legal-cultural attitudes and perceptions over time.

The Milk (Amendment) Order, 1917, which came into force on December 31st, provides that milk shall be sold retail only by Imperial measure; that no colouring matter shall be added to milk or cream intended for sale; that no milk to which any water has been added shall knowingly be sold or offered for sale; that no person may use for the purpose of his trade any milk can or milk bottle which bears the name, trade name, trade mark, or trade device of some person other than himself or his employer, except with the consent of such person. The Order contains a new clause, in substitution for Clauses 4 and 6 of the Milk Order, 1917 (which are revoked), providing that where milk is sold wholesale by or on behalf of any person other than the producer the maximum prices chargeable shall, unless otherwise determined, pursuant to the Order, be as follows:—

The services rendered by the Public Analysts of the country during the past seventy years in general and during the past five years in particular in the interests of public health is one of those imponderable national assets whose value to the community cannot be estimated in terms of the pound sterling or the pound avoirdupois. But there they are and the best acknowledgement is to say that a knowledge of what should be “the nature, substance, and quality” of our foods and drugs is largely based on the impartial and practical findings of the group of experts known generically as “Public Analyst.” All such reports, like this one for the year 1944, which is under consideration, strongly emphasise by their mere nature the increasing complexity and importance of the examination of foods and drugs under the main a,nd subsidiary acts and regulations. In fact the Public Analyst might, under present conditions, say, mutatis mutandis, with Bacon “so great is the accumulation of the statutes … and so intricate are they, that the certainty of the law is entirely lost in the heap.” We believe that when Bacon wrote there were about two thousand statutes on the books. By this time the number of regulations issued by the Ministry of Food in the interests of public health must have swelled almost to the dimensions of a legal code, but there the comparison ends. Many regulations have been issued as a result of conditions imposed by the War whereby the use of a corresponding number of what were well‐known constituents of foods has been either prohibited or limited in amount. The processing of foods has greatly developed. Many of these foods are produced under the stimulus of trade competition. The Labelling of Food (No. 2) Order, 1944, “by far the most important of the orders relating to the adulteration of food,” requires that the labels of pre‐packed foods must give the name or registered trade mark and address of the packer or labeller; and that the purchaser may have some idea of what he may be buying the quantity of each ingredient must be stated, or if this be not done then the ingredients must be listed in the order of their proportions beginning with the name of the one that occurs in the largest proprotion. The net weight of the food must be stated. Certain exemptions are allowed. Thus milk, fish, fruit, and vegetables preserved otherwise than by canning and bottling and for others whose composition is already controlled by regulation. The Order ensures that “the nature of new types of compound food … will be known at least in general terms.” The Report further says, “This Order is a great step forward in the history of food legislation, and will be welcomed by public analysts no less than by consumers, although it will certainly entail a very considerable addition to the analytical work already involved in the examination of foods, and will necessitate in the case of the determination of vitamins, the use of specialised technique and of expensive apparatus.” The Order states that if a food contains vitamins or minerals the minimum quantity of these per ounce must be specified on label or in advertisement. The same remarks will, we imagine, apply to the drawing up of food standards. The Ministry of Food is empowered to do this. Food standards have been urgently needed for a long time past and many are now in existence. These are official and binding as will be others as they appear. It will be noticed that they relate for the most part to more or less highly processed foods such as self‐raising flour, fruit curd, jam, marmalade, mincemeat, and coffee essence. The absence of official standards has tended to confusion and uncertainty. It may become a case of “so many men so many minds,” unless the offence be very gross and obvious. The “protective” foods, fresh milk, eggs, fruit, and vegetables are the most needful especially for the younger members of the community. Unfortunately they are the most costly and unless they be fresh are worse than useless. Milk qualitatively and quantitatively stands first on the list. The report states that the percentage of adulteration, 9·5, is the highest recorded for the years 1939 to 1944 inclusive. It is pointed out that it must not be assumed from these figures that 9·5 per cent. of the milk supplied to Birmingham is adulterated as 72 out of the 267 reported against were taken from only 12 vendors whose milk was suspected. The composition of the milk sold in Birmingham compares favourably as regards composition with those of five other towns or counties whose figures are quoted. Incidentally, it may be remarked that the legal limit of 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat and 3 per cent. of fat is a generous minimum, for from the figures given for the average composition of all samples of milk for 1944 it seems that the non‐fatty solids amount to 8·77 per cent. and fat to 3·65 per cent., while the average composition of all farmers' milks is practically the same. It is unnecessary to elaborate the point further beyond remarking that the figures given show that generally there is no excuse for poor quality milk. Unsafe milk, that is milk containing pathogenic organisms, is another matter. Particulars of prosecutions of five farmers for selling adulterated milk are given. In two of the cases mentioned adulteration, in one case certainly in the other case probably, was due to dishonesty of employees. In another case it seems that 57 gallons of “milk” represented by six samples contained 5½ gallons of added water! The milk coolers were found to be in order. The persistent and inexplicable leakiness of that piece of mechanism is frequently put forward as an excuse for the presence of extraneous water in milk. The cows, too, were young and in good condition. Presumably they were yielding milk of normal quality. It will also be remembered that the alleged all too ready response of these animals to slight variations in food or weather is sometimes given as a reason for fat deficiency. With regard to other foods reported against. The low available carbon dioxide content of baking powder, self‐raising flour and the like would seem to be due to old stock. The vendor in one case, “discovered at the back of the shop,” nine packets of old stock. Poor storage conditions; or unsatisfactory containers would also seem to be contributory. Other foods, some being of like character to the above named, have attained notoriety by being enriched with eggs, larvae, and mites. Other offences are of well‐known type. We have “coffee” with 15 per cent. of chicory in one case and about 33 per cent. in another. Orange flavour beverage powder containing, “among other things,” 13·4 per cent. of Epsom salts! Why? The packers would seem to have a penchant for Epsom salts. They had added this purgative before and were now asked to label the package giving the amount of Epsom salts. The only explanation that occurs to the writer is that it was the wish of the packers to rid the system as quickly as possible of the beverage before the “other things” had time to take an effective hand in the game. Two samples of rice contained an excess of French chalk. This had been used as a polishing agent in an attempt to attract the palate by pleasing the eye. Unfortunately this removes the germ plus vitamin B. This process was practised long before the existence of vitamin B was even suspected and the public has by this time so successfully humbugged itself into the belief that rice not so treated is unfit to eat that it would require another Order of the Ministry to protect the purchaser against himself. “Brawn” had a “most unappetising appearance.” It had been dyed a brilliant red and its make up—only 4 per cent. of flesh meat—was such “that by no stretch of the imagination” could it be called brawn. Yet even the sale of this stuff seems to have been successful. The brilliant red colour possibly doing the trick this time. “Honey.” In this case the word Honey was printed in large type and underneath “emulsified flavour” in small type. It consisted of a 2 per cent. solution of gum artificially flavoured of the consistency and appearance of honey. “The whole ‘get up’ was calculated to mislead as to the nature, substance and quality.” Tinned soup was described on the label as “extra concentrated,” and was alleged to make “twice the quantity of soup.” It was “no more concentrated than any other canned soup on the market.” “A packet of so called ‘stuffing’ was found to consist almost entirely of bread crumbs.” It was described as “very old stock.” The Ministry of Food insist on 7¾ per cent. of herbs being included. How “very old stock” could be even an explanation let alone an excuse we fail to see. In another case that ever useful word “improved” was used. “Improved Parrishes Chemical Food” was found not to correspond with British Pharmacopoeia requirements, and further the “word ‘improved’ hardly seemed applicable to a product containing 30 per cent. less of one of the principal constituents than the official article.” Then we come to “Port Wine.” As the result of a complaint—regarding the quality of rum and port, wine sold at a licensed house—samples were taken. The rum was found to be genuine. The port, however, consisted of “so called ‘British Wine.’” It seems that the licensee “had developed the very unfortunate habit of supplying it when asked for port.” The licensee was warned that he must disclose the nature of the drink when selling it. In 1944 5,302 samples were taken in Birmingham under the Food and Drugs Act. 368 of these or 6–8 per cent. were reported against. Those mentioned above are a few typical instances. Unfortunately no comparison with the rest of England and Wales in this respect is possible, the Ministry of Health having suspended the publication of figures. It is, however, certain that every such report introduces a new act in this comedy of errors with the Public Analyst as chorus.

The Sanitary Committee of a certain County Council, strong with the strength of recent creation, have lately been animated by a desire to distinguish themselves in some way, and, proceeding along the lines of least resistance, they appear to have selected the Public Analyst as the most suitable object for attack. The charge against this unfortunate official was not that he is incompetent, or that he had been in any way negligent of his duties as prescribed by Act of Parliament, but simply and solely that he has the temerity to reside in London, which city is distant by a certain number of miles from the much favoured district controlled by the County Council aforesaid. The committee were favoured in their deliberations by the assistance of no less an authority than the “Principal” of a local “Technical School”;—and who could be more capable than he to express an opinion upon so simple a matter? This eminent exponent of scientific truths, after due and proper consideration, is reported to have delivered himself of the opinion that “scientifically it would be desirable that the analyst should reside in the district, as the delay occasioned by the sending of samples of water to London is liable to produce a misleading effect upon an analysis.” Apparently appalled by the contemplation of such possibilities, and strengthened by another expression of opinion to the effect that there were as “good men” in the district as in London, the committee resolved to recommend the County Council to determine the existing arrangement with the Public Analyst, and to appoint a “local analyst for all purposes.” Thus, the only objection which could be urged to the employment of a Public Analyst resident in London was the ridiculous one that the composition of a sample of water was likely to seriously alter during the period of its transit to London, and this contention becomes still more absurd when it is remembered that the examination of water samples is no part of the official duty of a Public Analyst. The employment of local scientific talent may be very proper when the object to be attained is simply the more or less imperfect instruction of the rising generation in the rudiments of what passes in this country for “technical education”; but the work of the Public Analyst is serious and responsible, and cannot be lightly undertaken by every person who may be acquainted with some of the uses of a test‐tube. The worthy members of this committee may find to their cost, as other committees have found before them, that persons possessing the requisite knowledge and experience are not necessarily indigenous to their district. Supposing that the County Council adopts the recommendation, the aspirations of the committee may even then be strangled in their infancy, as the Local Government Board will want to know all about the matter, and the committee will have to give serious and valid reasons in support of their case.

In a communication which appeared in The Times, and which Mr. Max Pemberton has also addressed to this Journal, Mr. Pemberton observes that during the Great War a Commercial Treaty was made between this country and its oldest ally, Portugal. One of the considerations for this Treaty was that Great Britain reserved to Portugal the sole right of use of the name “Port” to be applied to wines certified as such by the Portuguese Government. Before that Treaty there was no legal restriction of the use of the word “port,” which could be, and was, applied to cheap Spanish and even British wines—such as “Tarragona Port” and “British Port.” Unfortunately, in granting Portugal the exclusive right to the word “Port,” our Government made no stipulation as to the standard below which the Portuguese wines should not be certified as port, and, in effect, the Treaty bound the English law to follow the Portuguese law in this matter. Port is a strong wine made from vines grown on the banks of the Upper Douro, and “fortified” at the vintage by the addition of fine grape brandy. Its strength is a vital and distinctive characteristic, and at the time when the Treaty was made, and for very many years before that, the strength standard recognised by all reputable shippers was not under 35 per cent. of proof spirit. At the time of the Treaty, our wine duty was 2s. 6d. per dozen for wines up to 30 per cent., and 6s. per dozen for wines above that strength. so that all “recognised” ports then paid our higher rate of duty.—In 1920 our wine duties were doubled and all wines over 30 became chargeable at 12s. per dozen, instead of 6s. With a view to reducing costs some syndicates in Portugal then started shipping ports to this country at strengths below 30 per cent., thus saving 7s. a dozen to the buyers. But this saving was not necessarily passed to the consumer, and as, unfortunately, the law does not require a statement of the strength of port on the label, these low‐strength wines can be sold to the public at the same prices as the recognised high‐grade and high‐strength ports. At present, therefore, the public has no security as to strength, unless it insists on buying ports of the well‐known brands of reputable, houses, which carry a guarantee that they are of full strength, and these low‐strength wines sold as port are pouring into this country in an ever‐increasing volume, nearly three times as much having been shipped to Great Britain in the year 1924–5 as in 1921–22. If all these 2,228.842 gallons of low‐duty port imported into this country paid the higher rate of wine duty, the Revenue would have received £390,000 more from them than it actually did—in other words, the difference in the duty paid on these wines has resulted in a loss of that sum to the British revenue. Our Government could not have foreseen, when the treaty was made, how it would be evaded. From the revenue point of view, therefore, as well as that of the consumer, there is a clear case for regulating the strength at which wines may be described as “port.”—Port now plays so great a part in the wine dietary of this country that there should be an amendment of our law which would compel a statement on all port labels as to the strength of the wine—whether above or below the 30 per cent. duty line—in protection of the British consumer, who, in the meantime, can protect himself only on insisting on a disclosure as to whether his wine be full strength or otherwise. Indeed, some of the leading houses have found it necessary already to state on their labels and in their advertisements that their ports are of “full strength” as a safeguard to the buyer. Undoubtedly, some legal protection is required for the growing army of port consumers, in accordance with the precedent by which the law compels disclosure of strength in the case of whisky and other spirits below 35 degrees under proof. The public would then be protected against a form of the “confidence trick” and vendors of port could not complain if they were required to state the strength‐standard of their wine. Strong wines (over 30 degrees) from our Colonies were granted in the last Budget a preference of 8s. per dozen in duty, with a deliberate view to the development of Empire trade. Such is the magic of the word “port,” however, that so long as the wines are subject to the competition of low‐duty Portuguese wines at a cheap price to which the name “port” may be applied (Colonial wines are not permitted by law to use that name) the preference wines cannot be fully effective. If our Imperial wines containing over 30 per cent. of proof spirit cannot be described as port, it seems unfair that the name should be allowed to Portuguese wines containing less than 30 per cent. of proof spirit.