On Jan 17, 3:16 am, Russell wrote:
On Jan 16, 9:38 pm, Old Pif wrote:



On Jan 16, 9:16 pm, Russell wrote:

On Jan 16, 7:32 pm, wrote:

It seems like "risk management" isn't much more than a psychological
"security blanket" for executives who pay for the service. One
literally can't secure for *everything*.

It can (and should be) more than that, although perhaps sometimes
it isn't. It is a discipline that applies to more than business,
and the point isn't to secure for everything, it is to assess what
the risks are, what the probability distributions of potential
losses are, in order to inform the decision about what preventative
measures, insurance, etc. is justified given one's criteria.

In my place we have mandatory risk evaluation process for every
project above certain size. Usually, the probabilities are massaged
until the management is happy. So much about that science ...

Unfortunately, science sometimes is abused. My professional
interest is more in natural hazards as risks,

You wouldn't happen to have had a rather heated argument with me a
while ago?

I get the impression you are someone who called himself "Leafy" on the
forum concerned.

My point of view seems to have been taken up since then and in another
(but similar) direction by Michael Moo

In a free market, insurers will not insure people who need insurance.
Rather they would insure the ones that don't.

He worked for an insurance risk assessor or worse perhaps: a loss
adjuster. I never found out what his point of view was other than to
get me to tell him how to forecast hurricanes for free.

What ****ed me off was that in order to give fair warning of these
things I am honour bound to pursue my course to the end and to publish
freely my findings.

And the obvious consequence of my success is that brown people who
live in New Orleans might suffer an unbelievable fate if their fair
city was ever to be hit by an F3 hurricane.

Oh! Wait.....