<?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: Risk Risk Analysis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://riskviews.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/risk-risk-analysis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://riskviews.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/risk-risk-analysis/</link>
	<description>Commentary on Risk and ERM</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:41:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: riskviews</title>
		<link>http://riskviews.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/risk-risk-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-9484</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[riskviews]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:10:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://riskviews.wordpress.com/?p=3734#comment-9484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The idea of &quot;defining&quot; risk to mean something other than the common usage of the word has always struck me as at best counterproductive and at worst Orwellian.  There are plenty of good English words that can be used to express the concepts that you are using.  
It sounds like a janitor who is in charge of sweeping up, so he tells everyone that &quot;sweeping&quot; really means managing the Asian division.  
The ORGANIZATION needs to attend to both the upside and the downside.  When the person who has been assigned to look after the downside starts to focus more attention on the upside, then the organization should hire another person to pay attention to the downside and then must decide whether to retain that former risk manager or not.  
If the firm never wanted to actually pay any attention to the downside, they will be happy that the risk manager has discovered this idea of redefining the word risk.  But that does not make what they are doing actually risk management.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The idea of &#8220;defining&#8221; risk to mean something other than the common usage of the word has always struck me as at best counterproductive and at worst Orwellian.  There are plenty of good English words that can be used to express the concepts that you are using.<br />
It sounds like a janitor who is in charge of sweeping up, so he tells everyone that &#8220;sweeping&#8221; really means managing the Asian division.<br />
The ORGANIZATION needs to attend to both the upside and the downside.  When the person who has been assigned to look after the downside starts to focus more attention on the upside, then the organization should hire another person to pay attention to the downside and then must decide whether to retain that former risk manager or not.<br />
If the firm never wanted to actually pay any attention to the downside, they will be happy that the risk manager has discovered this idea of redefining the word risk.  But that does not make what they are doing actually risk management.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
