<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: One in Two Hundred</title>
	<atom:link href="http://riskviews.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/one-in-two-hundred/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://riskviews.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/one-in-two-hundred/</link>
	<description>Commentary on Risk and ERM</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 02:55:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Howe</title>
		<link>http://riskviews.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/one-in-two-hundred/comment-page-1/#comment-6494</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Howe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:34:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://riskviews.wordpress.com/?p=1265#comment-6494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[windwill81 &quot;... Wouldn’t that imply companies are individually independent?&quot;

I don&#039;t think so. 

Consider 200 identical companies which survive or fail together each year (yes, it&#039;s artificial of course). It&#039;s quite possible for the probability that a given company fails in a year to be 1/200. In this case &quot;in the long run&quot; you&#039;d expect 199 years to have no failures and 1 year to have 200 failures. In a layman&#039;s sense you don&#039;t &quot;expect&quot; one failure per year.

Probabilities as low as this are notoriously different to judge, especially when the past is such a poor gudie to the future. In theory regulators (rather than firms) are looking at this sort of dependence issue via &quot;macro-prudential regulation&quot; programmes. We&#039;ll see!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>windwill81 &#8220;&#8230; Wouldn’t that imply companies are individually independent?&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think so. </p>
<p>Consider 200 identical companies which survive or fail together each year (yes, it&#8217;s artificial of course). It&#8217;s quite possible for the probability that a given company fails in a year to be 1/200. In this case &#8220;in the long run&#8221; you&#8217;d expect 199 years to have no failures and 1 year to have 200 failures. In a layman&#8217;s sense you don&#8217;t &#8220;expect&#8221; one failure per year.</p>
<p>Probabilities as low as this are notoriously different to judge, especially when the past is such a poor gudie to the future. In theory regulators (rather than firms) are looking at this sort of dependence issue via &#8220;macro-prudential regulation&#8221; programmes. We&#8217;ll see!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: windwill81</title>
		<link>http://riskviews.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/one-in-two-hundred/comment-page-1/#comment-6482</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[windwill81]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://riskviews.wordpress.com/?p=1265#comment-6482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Very thought provoking. One thing that confused me was to hear people saying that 99.5% confidence level used in Solvency II means that 1 in 200 companies will fail in one year. Wouldn&#039;t that imply companies are individually independent? Really like your other explanation of the meaning of this 1-in-200 thing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very thought provoking. One thing that confused me was to hear people saying that 99.5% confidence level used in Solvency II means that 1 in 200 companies will fail in one year. Wouldn&#8217;t that imply companies are individually independent? Really like your other explanation of the meaning of this 1-in-200 thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
