With the growing concern and diplomatic tension of rogue states with nuclear capability, does the establishment of a nuclear war risk insurance now a commercially viable enterprise?
By: Ringo Bones
The Cold War may be a distant memory for most of us but the threat of Nuclear Armageddon has and is always been still at a moment’s notice – especially now with the tensions between North and South Korea are on an all time high due to the sinking of a South Korean warship under suspicious circumstances that resulted in the death of 46 South Korean sailors. Not to mention Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program that has raised serious concerns on every UN Security Council sessions. Add to that Taiwan’s desire to be fully independent from Beijing and loose nukes falling to the hands of extremist groups making it still a safe bet that the possibility of a nuclear war is still not zero. It really seems that the Doomsday Clock at the headquarters of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is stuck at two minutes to midnight. Given that the threat of nuclear annihilation today is probably no more or no less of a possibility as it was at the height of the Cold War, does the establishment of nuclear war risk insurance still economically viable?
Ordinary war risk insurance came into being when the need for an affordable marine insurance arose during the threat of submarine warfare back in World War II. The US Congress then passed the War Risk Insurance Act, which provided insurance protection for cargo and crew ships supplying for the Allies. Since private underwriters at that time did not dare insure civilian ships engaged in commerce except at premiums far above those which could be paid. The War Shipping Administration – much to the relief of the private underwriters – offered premiums far below commercial rates which only the US government has the revenue to afford to take such risks at that time. Given that the legal precedents for establishing war risk insurance are already in place, is there one needed for the establishment for nuclear war risk insurance?
At least for mail in the United States that is, back in the early 1950s, the US Postal Service developed an emergency planning manual, outlining procedures that would still allow mail delivery following a nuclear attack. These plans were regularly updated and a complete revision was undertaken back in1981. In addition, Executive Order 11490, dated October 28, 1969, as amended by Executive Order 11921, dated June 11, 1976, assigned the post office responsibility for emergency mail service and other duties associated with civil defense programs of the time. Detailed instructions were also stockpiled, telling people how to fill up forms and account for any missing persons – and for postal officials, how to test cards for radioactivity before processing them.
Among the actions outlined in the 1981 revisions state the authorization of local postmasters to burn stamps to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. Restrict mail sent after a nuclear attack to first class letters and to place an immediate ban on the issuance of money orders for payment in the country that attacked the United States. At a 1982 congressional hearing, a post office official acknowledged that a massive nuclear attack would – at the very least – make implementing the agency’s plans very difficult. But he then defended them by saying that the agency must be prepared.
Given that today’s US Congress are currently embroiled in immigration and healthcare than in revising Executive Order 11490 and Executive Order 11921 in order for a better tailored emergency response against nuclear attacks from rogue states and extremist groups. Or better yet serve as a legal precedent for equitably structured nuclear war risk insurance. The establishment of a nuclear war risk insurance – as it seems – has become as dubious a concept as personal meteorite strike insurance - a catastrophic risk whose possibility of happening is exceedingly small from a statistical standpoint, reminiscent of the concept behind the Partitioned Multi-objective Risk Method developed by Yacov Haimes when it comes to the risk assessment rationale behind nuclear war risk insurance. Maybe insurance company brokers better consult their underwriters’ box and loss adjusters whether nuclear war risk insurance is a sound business model before their competitors beat them to an increasingly lucrative niche insurance market. It could be a very Dr. Strangeloveian way to make a profit.
Showing posts with label Risk Assessment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Risk Assessment. Show all posts
Monday, July 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Fault-Tree Analysis: Still A Relevant Risk Assessment Tool?
First formulated in order to assess the probability of failure of fairly complex systems over thirty years ago is the fault-tree analysis still applicable in current assessment of today’s complex systems?
By: Ringo Bones
Even though there’s a growing perception of the general public’s declining trust in risk management since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, it is quite ironic to ponder that risk assessment has further matured since that tragic event. As long as they had been around or had been tenured by insurance companies, risk analysts often start by dividing hazards into two parts – namely exposure and effect. Even though they’ve had it down to a science, insurance companies cannot yet predict whether any single driver will be killed or injured in an accident, even though they can estimate the annual number of crash-related deaths and injuries in the United States with considerable precision. With the salient point in the development of risk assessment during the past three decades had been in large part the search of ways to determine the extent of risks that have very little precedent. Like the link between cellular phone / mobile phone use and brain tumor risks and a more objective assessment of catastrophic global warming risks.
Risk assessments of complex systems are more often than not defined by the enumeration of failure modes. A common technique called failure mode and effect analysis where risk analysts try to identify all the events that might lead to a system breakdown. Usually when all the failure modes have been enumerated, the fault-tree analysis has been routinely used since the last 35 years or so, as an aid to estimate the likelihood of failure of any given mode.
First utilized on a large scale by Norman C. Rasmussen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology back in 1975 to study nuclear reactor safety. Although specific details of his risk assessment estimates were disputed under peer review, fault-tree analyses are now routinely used in the nuclear industry. As a rule, a fault tree graphically represents how the subsystems of a larger system depend on one another and how a failure of one part affects key operations. Once a particular fault tree of a particular system is constructed, one need to only estimate the probability that once individual elements do fail, the same probability governs the set of circumstances that lead to the entire system’s failure to function.
Due to the method’s good track record of formulating more effective risk mitigation while reducing costs in its implementation, the plane-maker Boeing had been for sometime now been applying fault-tree analysis in the design of large aircraft. Company engineers have identified and remedied a number of potential problems in passenger aircraft design. Such as vulnerabilities caused by routing multiple control lines through the same area, which can be a recipe for disaster during a bird-strike incident. Even though it is already too late for their chemical plant in Bhopal, India, Union Carbide had also employed the technique in designing processes for chemical plants. Particularly in deciding where to situate their plants and in evaluating the risks of transporting particular chemicals. But as a risk assessment tool, is fault-tree analysis still relevant today?
Maybe Barbara Ehrenreich was right for lambasting the overly-optimistic and cavalier attitude of Wall Street when it comes to risk assessment because the fat-cats had never discussed using fault-tree analysis to examine the vulnerability of the global financial system’s propensity to failure. As a fairly complex system, fault-tree analysis could have been used to examine the global financial system’s failure modes that could have averted the widespread collapse of banks and other financial institutions deemed to big to fail back in 2008.
In our eternal struggle for the search for an effective carbon neutral energy source, fault-tree analysis could be used to assess the risks of constructing more nuclear fission power plants in comparison to the global warming risks posed by coal-fired power plants. As the only feasible carbon neutral electricity generating power plant that is here right now, a renewed risk assessment of nuclear fission technology deserves reevaluation until we can find something better that truly works.
By: Ringo Bones
Even though there’s a growing perception of the general public’s declining trust in risk management since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, it is quite ironic to ponder that risk assessment has further matured since that tragic event. As long as they had been around or had been tenured by insurance companies, risk analysts often start by dividing hazards into two parts – namely exposure and effect. Even though they’ve had it down to a science, insurance companies cannot yet predict whether any single driver will be killed or injured in an accident, even though they can estimate the annual number of crash-related deaths and injuries in the United States with considerable precision. With the salient point in the development of risk assessment during the past three decades had been in large part the search of ways to determine the extent of risks that have very little precedent. Like the link between cellular phone / mobile phone use and brain tumor risks and a more objective assessment of catastrophic global warming risks.
Risk assessments of complex systems are more often than not defined by the enumeration of failure modes. A common technique called failure mode and effect analysis where risk analysts try to identify all the events that might lead to a system breakdown. Usually when all the failure modes have been enumerated, the fault-tree analysis has been routinely used since the last 35 years or so, as an aid to estimate the likelihood of failure of any given mode.
First utilized on a large scale by Norman C. Rasmussen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology back in 1975 to study nuclear reactor safety. Although specific details of his risk assessment estimates were disputed under peer review, fault-tree analyses are now routinely used in the nuclear industry. As a rule, a fault tree graphically represents how the subsystems of a larger system depend on one another and how a failure of one part affects key operations. Once a particular fault tree of a particular system is constructed, one need to only estimate the probability that once individual elements do fail, the same probability governs the set of circumstances that lead to the entire system’s failure to function.
Due to the method’s good track record of formulating more effective risk mitigation while reducing costs in its implementation, the plane-maker Boeing had been for sometime now been applying fault-tree analysis in the design of large aircraft. Company engineers have identified and remedied a number of potential problems in passenger aircraft design. Such as vulnerabilities caused by routing multiple control lines through the same area, which can be a recipe for disaster during a bird-strike incident. Even though it is already too late for their chemical plant in Bhopal, India, Union Carbide had also employed the technique in designing processes for chemical plants. Particularly in deciding where to situate their plants and in evaluating the risks of transporting particular chemicals. But as a risk assessment tool, is fault-tree analysis still relevant today?
Maybe Barbara Ehrenreich was right for lambasting the overly-optimistic and cavalier attitude of Wall Street when it comes to risk assessment because the fat-cats had never discussed using fault-tree analysis to examine the vulnerability of the global financial system’s propensity to failure. As a fairly complex system, fault-tree analysis could have been used to examine the global financial system’s failure modes that could have averted the widespread collapse of banks and other financial institutions deemed to big to fail back in 2008.
In our eternal struggle for the search for an effective carbon neutral energy source, fault-tree analysis could be used to assess the risks of constructing more nuclear fission power plants in comparison to the global warming risks posed by coal-fired power plants. As the only feasible carbon neutral electricity generating power plant that is here right now, a renewed risk assessment of nuclear fission technology deserves reevaluation until we can find something better that truly works.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Do Pessimists Make Good Insurance Company CEOs?
Given that the primary business of insurance companies has been on dwelling on what’s the worst that could happen, does this make pessimist prime candidates for insurance company CEOs?
By: Ringo Bones
Maybe that bloke named Murphy who they named Murphy’s Law should have started his own insurance company, who knows, he could have made a bundle – or what about Friedrich Nietzsche? Just a few historically famous “pessimists” who would have made top notch CEOs for today’s insurance companies. A will to power ones investment portfolio? Or is it just a routine risk management as usual?
After reading Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich, a pet theory of mine has been renewed once again. A theory pertaining to why people with a naturally pessimistic disposition are better suited to be insurance company CEOs compared to their cheery, chirpy counterparts – especially ones that practice unnecessary discrimination when it suits them while maintaining a happy disposition. Despite the howls of protest of those cheery CEOs that ran their company to the ground during the Bush Administration over the accuracy of Barbara Ehrenreich’s pet theories on why Wall Street buckled only proves Ehrenreich’s insights on this contentious issue to be self-evident. Even though recent findings in cultural anthropology and archeology had always tried to tell us that too much positive thinking – especially when combined with leaving things to chance – could be humanity’s undoing.
Humanity’s earliest ancestors manage to survive through a series of supposedly insurmountable challenges like climactic extremes, super-volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that would make those catastrophic tragedies that happened within our living memory seem tame in comparison. Thanks to humanity’s intelligence and wit – largely driven by constantly worrying about the worst that’s yet to come. In other words - pessimism. Could it be that Natural Selection is Mother Nature’s very own risk assessment strategy? If humanity manages to survive through the worst aspects of climate change that is yet to come, it is safe to bet that it is because we finally took action on the most pessimistic ramblings of Al Gore over the dangers of climate change.
Unfortunately, corporate America has a habit of firing overtly cautious employees with pessimistic disposition. The very same people who could have warned the impending subprime mortgage crisis that can trace its roots back in 2006. The Wall Street overlords have no use for such folks, favoring instead to “yes men” too spineless to point out to their very own mistakes and shortcomings. Sadder still, this corporate oversight grew in popularity during the time when Ronald Reagan ruled the Free World where Wall Street amassed huge profits during the “Decade of Greed” of the 1980s.
Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich really did point out the culture of a “happiness delusion” that undermined the true potential of corporate America. An overtly positive thinking without a safety net, or worse still – using the ideology of happiness delusion as a safety net, really did almost destroy America. During the 1980s, this happiness delusion became an industry in itself with books, office accessories, posters, etc. and it did become mandatory in the corporate world – especially Wall Street. I just hope that an overtly positive thinking won’t be used as a fairy-dust against failure anymore. Folks that worry so much in working out solutions in making good out of worst situations now need the much-deserved commendation they were once ignored. Maybe somebody should hire Barbara Ehrenreich as a risk assessor.
By: Ringo Bones
Maybe that bloke named Murphy who they named Murphy’s Law should have started his own insurance company, who knows, he could have made a bundle – or what about Friedrich Nietzsche? Just a few historically famous “pessimists” who would have made top notch CEOs for today’s insurance companies. A will to power ones investment portfolio? Or is it just a routine risk management as usual?
After reading Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich, a pet theory of mine has been renewed once again. A theory pertaining to why people with a naturally pessimistic disposition are better suited to be insurance company CEOs compared to their cheery, chirpy counterparts – especially ones that practice unnecessary discrimination when it suits them while maintaining a happy disposition. Despite the howls of protest of those cheery CEOs that ran their company to the ground during the Bush Administration over the accuracy of Barbara Ehrenreich’s pet theories on why Wall Street buckled only proves Ehrenreich’s insights on this contentious issue to be self-evident. Even though recent findings in cultural anthropology and archeology had always tried to tell us that too much positive thinking – especially when combined with leaving things to chance – could be humanity’s undoing.
Humanity’s earliest ancestors manage to survive through a series of supposedly insurmountable challenges like climactic extremes, super-volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that would make those catastrophic tragedies that happened within our living memory seem tame in comparison. Thanks to humanity’s intelligence and wit – largely driven by constantly worrying about the worst that’s yet to come. In other words - pessimism. Could it be that Natural Selection is Mother Nature’s very own risk assessment strategy? If humanity manages to survive through the worst aspects of climate change that is yet to come, it is safe to bet that it is because we finally took action on the most pessimistic ramblings of Al Gore over the dangers of climate change.
Unfortunately, corporate America has a habit of firing overtly cautious employees with pessimistic disposition. The very same people who could have warned the impending subprime mortgage crisis that can trace its roots back in 2006. The Wall Street overlords have no use for such folks, favoring instead to “yes men” too spineless to point out to their very own mistakes and shortcomings. Sadder still, this corporate oversight grew in popularity during the time when Ronald Reagan ruled the Free World where Wall Street amassed huge profits during the “Decade of Greed” of the 1980s.
Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich really did point out the culture of a “happiness delusion” that undermined the true potential of corporate America. An overtly positive thinking without a safety net, or worse still – using the ideology of happiness delusion as a safety net, really did almost destroy America. During the 1980s, this happiness delusion became an industry in itself with books, office accessories, posters, etc. and it did become mandatory in the corporate world – especially Wall Street. I just hope that an overtly positive thinking won’t be used as a fairy-dust against failure anymore. Folks that worry so much in working out solutions in making good out of worst situations now need the much-deserved commendation they were once ignored. Maybe somebody should hire Barbara Ehrenreich as a risk assessor.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Spacecraft and Satellite Collision Insurance
Does the recent incident of an active US commercial satellite colliding with an expired Russian military satellite necessitates the reevaluation of existing insurance of space-bound and space-based assets?
By: Vanessa Uy
Last Tuesday – February 10, 2009 – an active commercial US telecommunications satellite had the unlikely misfortune of colliding with an already expired – but still intact – Russian Cosmos military satellite 800 kilometers above Northern Siberia. Both Earth-orbiting satellites apparently tried to cross the same point in space at the same time as they are traveling at the standard orbital speed of 17,380 miles per hour. The collision of two still-intact satellites was the first known accident of its kind in the history of space exploration and commercialization.
The resulting collision created a debris field comprised of a little over 600 RADAR-trackable debris that has the potential of endangering other multi-billion dollar space-based assets. Like the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station – which happens to travel within the same orbit window of the debris field of the recent satellite collision. Putting the long-term operations of these space-based assets in jeopardy.
As the first ever head-on crash of still-intact satellites in Earth orbit could also endanger other still active telecommunications satellites that make our current Internet and mobile phone / cellular phone systems possible. Given the existing and future risks, are existing insurance terms on space-based assets up to the task in providing equitable financial compensation when it comes to dealing with infrequent – but catastrophic – incidents such as these?
After reading Space Debris: Models and Risk Analysis by Heiner Klinkrad, the scientific data that could aid in providing equitable payouts for infrequent – but nonetheless catastrophic- satellite collisions such as these already exists. Klinkrad’s book did provide a comprehensive background in understanding the various sources of space debris and the assessment of associated risks of current and future space debris environment. While non-trackable objects – i.e. fragments too small to be “seen” by current RADAR technology - produced by historic on-orbit fragmentation events and several other sources of space debris are also discussed. Klinkrad’s book also discussed risk assessment models concerning with meteoroids when they turn into meteorite-strike hazards for both space-based assets and those back on Earth. Given that scientific data concerning the risk assessment of the impact and collision hazards of satellites and spacecraft already exists, will other academic research like that done by Heiner Klinkrad eventually shape the future structure of insurance products intended for our commercial and scientific space-based assets?
Currently, there are some 17,000 RADAR-trackable objects scrutinized by NORAD, which by the way also warns NASA’s manned missions of incoming space-debris – if their RADAR can “see” it – so as to take the necessary evasive maneuvers. Though the celestial mechanics of more than three bodies cannot be easily analyzed using the techniques developed by Victor Szebehely – make that the 600-plus orbital debris that resulted from the February 10, 2009 satellite collision. Especially if you take into account the gravitational influences of the major celestial bodies like the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, or whichever planet comes close to us at this time. Given that the cost of space assets from construction to launch can run into the millions, insuring them won’t be cheap.
But as the established insurance clauses on satellite and spacecraft are based on sound science, should the risk assessments be constantly reevaluated since orbital debris are steadily increasing as the years go by? Back in the early 1990’s, there were only 8,000 RADAR-trackable orbital debris in existence, now it is 17,000. Sooner or later, this would result in constant risk-assessment upgrades, or developed space-launch processes that produce lesser orbital debris than current ones.
By: Vanessa Uy
Last Tuesday – February 10, 2009 – an active commercial US telecommunications satellite had the unlikely misfortune of colliding with an already expired – but still intact – Russian Cosmos military satellite 800 kilometers above Northern Siberia. Both Earth-orbiting satellites apparently tried to cross the same point in space at the same time as they are traveling at the standard orbital speed of 17,380 miles per hour. The collision of two still-intact satellites was the first known accident of its kind in the history of space exploration and commercialization.
The resulting collision created a debris field comprised of a little over 600 RADAR-trackable debris that has the potential of endangering other multi-billion dollar space-based assets. Like the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station – which happens to travel within the same orbit window of the debris field of the recent satellite collision. Putting the long-term operations of these space-based assets in jeopardy.
As the first ever head-on crash of still-intact satellites in Earth orbit could also endanger other still active telecommunications satellites that make our current Internet and mobile phone / cellular phone systems possible. Given the existing and future risks, are existing insurance terms on space-based assets up to the task in providing equitable financial compensation when it comes to dealing with infrequent – but catastrophic – incidents such as these?
After reading Space Debris: Models and Risk Analysis by Heiner Klinkrad, the scientific data that could aid in providing equitable payouts for infrequent – but nonetheless catastrophic- satellite collisions such as these already exists. Klinkrad’s book did provide a comprehensive background in understanding the various sources of space debris and the assessment of associated risks of current and future space debris environment. While non-trackable objects – i.e. fragments too small to be “seen” by current RADAR technology - produced by historic on-orbit fragmentation events and several other sources of space debris are also discussed. Klinkrad’s book also discussed risk assessment models concerning with meteoroids when they turn into meteorite-strike hazards for both space-based assets and those back on Earth. Given that scientific data concerning the risk assessment of the impact and collision hazards of satellites and spacecraft already exists, will other academic research like that done by Heiner Klinkrad eventually shape the future structure of insurance products intended for our commercial and scientific space-based assets?
Currently, there are some 17,000 RADAR-trackable objects scrutinized by NORAD, which by the way also warns NASA’s manned missions of incoming space-debris – if their RADAR can “see” it – so as to take the necessary evasive maneuvers. Though the celestial mechanics of more than three bodies cannot be easily analyzed using the techniques developed by Victor Szebehely – make that the 600-plus orbital debris that resulted from the February 10, 2009 satellite collision. Especially if you take into account the gravitational influences of the major celestial bodies like the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, or whichever planet comes close to us at this time. Given that the cost of space assets from construction to launch can run into the millions, insuring them won’t be cheap.
But as the established insurance clauses on satellite and spacecraft are based on sound science, should the risk assessments be constantly reevaluated since orbital debris are steadily increasing as the years go by? Back in the early 1990’s, there were only 8,000 RADAR-trackable orbital debris in existence, now it is 17,000. Sooner or later, this would result in constant risk-assessment upgrades, or developed space-launch processes that produce lesser orbital debris than current ones.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Better Risk Assessment: Keeping Insurance Premiums Reasonable?
One sure-fire way of selling insurance policies is to maximize your coverage while keeping premium rates reasonably low. Had we now got this down to a science?
By: Vanessa Uy
Back in the good old days – the previous 25 or more years to be exact – insurance company actuarial mathematicians used to statistically assess risk using a figure called the expected loss. They got it by multiplying the probability of an accident occurring times the damage done by the accident.
Henceforth, policymakers and statisticians of almost every insurance company around the world grown content in using the concept of expected loss as the sole measure of risk. But since insurance companies are always in a perpetual search of ways to “streamline” their economic “bottom line”, the quest is on to create policies that are more ambitious than the one that precedes it. An insurance policy that not only provides coverage for “catastrophes” other insurance providers won’t touch with the proverbial ten-foot pole but also can keep the client’s premium rates down to the absolute reasonable minimum (from the insurance providers perspective at least).
That fateful day came around in 1986, when a mathematician from the University of Virginia named Yacov Haimes and his team developed the partitioned multi-objective risk method or PMRM. Haimes and his team argue that insurance company actuarial mathematicians need to account for catastrophes separately from ordinary accidents in order to provide a better-structured insurance policy, one that maximizes coverage while minimizing premium rates. Rare but expensive (in monetary terms) accidents, the team pointed out could have a small-expected loss given their improbability of occurring.
In his book “Risk Modeling, Assessment and Management”, Yacov Haimes discusses the art of risk management after years of being acquainted and gaining expertise on the subject. Especially it’s important applications in such areas as engineering, science, and even the politically tinged vagaries of public policy. Haimes’ writing style equally covers the quantitative and qualitative aspects risk management by emphasizing how to quantify risk via construct probability together with real-world decision-making problems without ignoring the host of institutional, organizational, political and cultural considerations which these days often accompany such challenges.
Since developing his PMRM, Haimes has co-developed an even newer method of risk assessment called risk filtering, ranking and management or RFRM. The usefulness of RFRM in risk assessment is supported by several case studies cited in Haimes’ book. Given that Yacov Haimes has provided a new focus on minimizing the high cost associated with today’s more extensive risk management, how can all of this benefit us, the lowly policy holder, or for that matter, the whole global economy as a whole?
Ever since our on-going global economic downturn slowly – but inexorably – continues to drive all of us into an uncomfortable sense of fiscal austerity. Whoever can provide products that provide the maximum performance for the least amount of money will not only survive, but can even prosper during these times of economic hardship. If insurance companies can manage to provide us with insurance policies that offer more for less, then both – the insurance provider and the “mere” policy holder – can weather out the on-going global “financial storm” with a comfortable margin of confidence.
By: Vanessa Uy
Back in the good old days – the previous 25 or more years to be exact – insurance company actuarial mathematicians used to statistically assess risk using a figure called the expected loss. They got it by multiplying the probability of an accident occurring times the damage done by the accident.
Henceforth, policymakers and statisticians of almost every insurance company around the world grown content in using the concept of expected loss as the sole measure of risk. But since insurance companies are always in a perpetual search of ways to “streamline” their economic “bottom line”, the quest is on to create policies that are more ambitious than the one that precedes it. An insurance policy that not only provides coverage for “catastrophes” other insurance providers won’t touch with the proverbial ten-foot pole but also can keep the client’s premium rates down to the absolute reasonable minimum (from the insurance providers perspective at least).
That fateful day came around in 1986, when a mathematician from the University of Virginia named Yacov Haimes and his team developed the partitioned multi-objective risk method or PMRM. Haimes and his team argue that insurance company actuarial mathematicians need to account for catastrophes separately from ordinary accidents in order to provide a better-structured insurance policy, one that maximizes coverage while minimizing premium rates. Rare but expensive (in monetary terms) accidents, the team pointed out could have a small-expected loss given their improbability of occurring.
In his book “Risk Modeling, Assessment and Management”, Yacov Haimes discusses the art of risk management after years of being acquainted and gaining expertise on the subject. Especially it’s important applications in such areas as engineering, science, and even the politically tinged vagaries of public policy. Haimes’ writing style equally covers the quantitative and qualitative aspects risk management by emphasizing how to quantify risk via construct probability together with real-world decision-making problems without ignoring the host of institutional, organizational, political and cultural considerations which these days often accompany such challenges.
Since developing his PMRM, Haimes has co-developed an even newer method of risk assessment called risk filtering, ranking and management or RFRM. The usefulness of RFRM in risk assessment is supported by several case studies cited in Haimes’ book. Given that Yacov Haimes has provided a new focus on minimizing the high cost associated with today’s more extensive risk management, how can all of this benefit us, the lowly policy holder, or for that matter, the whole global economy as a whole?
Ever since our on-going global economic downturn slowly – but inexorably – continues to drive all of us into an uncomfortable sense of fiscal austerity. Whoever can provide products that provide the maximum performance for the least amount of money will not only survive, but can even prosper during these times of economic hardship. If insurance companies can manage to provide us with insurance policies that offer more for less, then both – the insurance provider and the “mere” policy holder – can weather out the on-going global “financial storm” with a comfortable margin of confidence.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Environmental Coverage: Corporations versus Mother Nature?
Legislated environmental laws not only vary from country to country it is also evolving over time – in favor of the environment. Using this rationale, are existing environmental coverage clauses just a thinly veiled right for companies to pollute?
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since the term Corporate Social Responsibility became the latest buzzword in the world, corporate leaders keeping their promises to shareholders and the company’s “bottom line” is no longer enough. Corporate leaders must also fulfil their promise to their employees and the community that their business practices are not placing our environment at risk. But when push comes to shove, how many of our so-called corporate leaders choose in favor of the environment instead of just “looking out for number one”? Especially when there are Environmental Coverage already available that not only turn “unforeseen disasters” that they create in the first place out of greed and ignorance – or a bit of both – into manageable situations. If you choose to define manageable situations as “immunity from prosecution” to “profiting from their own apathy”, which explains the popularity of every G8 summit to unruly teenagers.
There are now a number of insurance companies that offer environmental coverage with well-backed claims of underwriting authority for environmental risks. Some of them with reputations solidly backed by Triple-A-rated financial strength, the latest Basel Accord compliance and what have you. The question now is, are products like Cleanup Cost Cap and Pollution Legal Liability Select and their ilk nothing more than a thinly veiled rights for companies to pollute while avoiding the pay out of punitive damages?
The most commonly perceived truth states that this problem is either too complicated to the average layman or can be easily manipulated by the demagoguery of every environmentalist / vote-for-me politician come lately who favors passion over rational thought. Fortunately one can easily “hedge their bets” so to speak by utilizing the aid of one of the latest mathematical tools in assessing whether a corporations “green credentials” are nothing more than misspent PR – namely Quantitative Risk Assessment.
As of late, Quantitative Risk Assessment has been utilized by insurance companies I cited before that offer Cleanup Cost Cap and Pollution Legal Liability Select services as a form of corporate transparency. Stating that their products are not just thinly veiled provisos that allow corporations to pollute and ruin our environment with impunity. Insurance companies that provide environmental coverage always stay abreast with the latest Quantitative Risk Assessment findings especially ones pertaining to the protection of our environment. I just hope when insurance companies custom-tailor an environmental coverage policy to a certain company; it would be equitable to the needs of our environment and to the local economy. The world doesn’t need another corporate injustice like the still unresolved compensation claims of the victims of the 1984 Union Carbide insecticide plant disaster in Bhopal, India.
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since the term Corporate Social Responsibility became the latest buzzword in the world, corporate leaders keeping their promises to shareholders and the company’s “bottom line” is no longer enough. Corporate leaders must also fulfil their promise to their employees and the community that their business practices are not placing our environment at risk. But when push comes to shove, how many of our so-called corporate leaders choose in favor of the environment instead of just “looking out for number one”? Especially when there are Environmental Coverage already available that not only turn “unforeseen disasters” that they create in the first place out of greed and ignorance – or a bit of both – into manageable situations. If you choose to define manageable situations as “immunity from prosecution” to “profiting from their own apathy”, which explains the popularity of every G8 summit to unruly teenagers.
There are now a number of insurance companies that offer environmental coverage with well-backed claims of underwriting authority for environmental risks. Some of them with reputations solidly backed by Triple-A-rated financial strength, the latest Basel Accord compliance and what have you. The question now is, are products like Cleanup Cost Cap and Pollution Legal Liability Select and their ilk nothing more than a thinly veiled rights for companies to pollute while avoiding the pay out of punitive damages?
The most commonly perceived truth states that this problem is either too complicated to the average layman or can be easily manipulated by the demagoguery of every environmentalist / vote-for-me politician come lately who favors passion over rational thought. Fortunately one can easily “hedge their bets” so to speak by utilizing the aid of one of the latest mathematical tools in assessing whether a corporations “green credentials” are nothing more than misspent PR – namely Quantitative Risk Assessment.
As of late, Quantitative Risk Assessment has been utilized by insurance companies I cited before that offer Cleanup Cost Cap and Pollution Legal Liability Select services as a form of corporate transparency. Stating that their products are not just thinly veiled provisos that allow corporations to pollute and ruin our environment with impunity. Insurance companies that provide environmental coverage always stay abreast with the latest Quantitative Risk Assessment findings especially ones pertaining to the protection of our environment. I just hope when insurance companies custom-tailor an environmental coverage policy to a certain company; it would be equitable to the needs of our environment and to the local economy. The world doesn’t need another corporate injustice like the still unresolved compensation claims of the victims of the 1984 Union Carbide insecticide plant disaster in Bhopal, India.
Monday, May 5, 2008
The Emergency Landing Brace Position: A Lethal Proposition?
Conspiracy theorists reasoned out that the emergency landing brace position is really designed to kill airline passengers in a crash because its cheaper to pay wrongful death suits than medical injury compensation. Is there a truth to this?
By: Vanessa UY
Our technological ability to fly – make that heavier than air technology – is now well over 100 years old, and yet quite a large portion of our populace still harbor this irrational fear of flying even though statistically air travel is the safest way to go. This is probably the reason why unfounded myths and rumors pertaining to the airline industry have become so prevalent lately. But one of these somewhat controversial myth / rumor being spread around by conspiracy theorists is about the one pertaining to the brace position instructed to be performed by airline passengers in case of an emergency landing.
According to the conspiracy buffs, the brace position is intended to kill airline passengers by breaking their necks easily rather than saving their lives. This is so because it’s cheaper for airline companies to pay out to the wrongful death lawsuits than to pay for the surviving passengers’ medical treatment and rehabilitation which could last the survivors entire natural life. In wrongful death pay outs, the airline companies typically pays 3 to 5 million dollars while for survivors medical treatment and lifetime rehabilitation, it could reach 50 million dollars. The risk assessment in dollar terms alone is very scary, reinforcing the typical conspiracy theorists conjecture about insurance and underwriters companies in collusion with the airline industry. By placing profits first before the safety and lives of their passengers, conspiracy theorists never had a better excuse in thinking so. But is there any truth to this?
A very entertaining science program on the Discovery Channel called Mythbusters routinely dispel and test suspected myths like the one previously mentioned by performing visually extravagant but valid scientific experiments that had gained them a cult following – especially to the younger viewers who desperately needed scientific enlightenment. In one episode, they did an experiment to test the validity of the myth that the brace position is designed to kill airline passengers during an emergency landing. Their high tech sensor loaded (actually they used postal / parcel service shock measuring stickers) crash test dummy named “Buster” was used to substitute a human passenger in an emergency landing situation. Sure enough, Buster demonstrated that the brace position actually reduced the shock or G load to a typical passenger by as much as 20 G s. That’s 20 G s less shock compared to a passenger in a normal sitting position. That’s a very significant difference of an outcome between survival and death.
To evaluate the big picture on why this myth ever came about in the first place, let’s examine first the history of manned aviation. When the Wright Brothers first demonstrated their newfound prowess of manned flight, they spawned a host of barnstormers i.e. early aviation enthusiasts. Even though they are very much popular and widespread, most people back then were still deathly scared by flying. Even witnessing a plane flying 30 feet above their heads is enough to terrify them even though there’s also a large majority who are curious to experience themselves the magic of flight. So when business entrepreneurs started the airline business back then, they have to convince the people how safe their planes are – or at least they cared about the safety of their passengers. And since airline companies are still around till this day, then safety concerns did came hand and hand with profits.
Sadly, there’s this other thing that the conspiracy theorists overlook that was always part and parcel of profit generating enterprises – namely corporate social responsibility and ethical business governance. Even though these concepts only became unique selling points of customers quite recently. It’s only common sense that your customers and clients will only do business with you again if you treat them right. Even private security contractors are subscribing to the corporate social responsibility and ethical business governance fad by using the phrase “at least we’re not killing innocent civilians” as their unique selling point. Maybe conspiracy theorists need to study the history of aviation first. If these conspiracy theorists don’t find history or science as a “sexy subject” anymore, then they should blame the Board of Education, not the airline industry.
By: Vanessa UY
Our technological ability to fly – make that heavier than air technology – is now well over 100 years old, and yet quite a large portion of our populace still harbor this irrational fear of flying even though statistically air travel is the safest way to go. This is probably the reason why unfounded myths and rumors pertaining to the airline industry have become so prevalent lately. But one of these somewhat controversial myth / rumor being spread around by conspiracy theorists is about the one pertaining to the brace position instructed to be performed by airline passengers in case of an emergency landing.
According to the conspiracy buffs, the brace position is intended to kill airline passengers by breaking their necks easily rather than saving their lives. This is so because it’s cheaper for airline companies to pay out to the wrongful death lawsuits than to pay for the surviving passengers’ medical treatment and rehabilitation which could last the survivors entire natural life. In wrongful death pay outs, the airline companies typically pays 3 to 5 million dollars while for survivors medical treatment and lifetime rehabilitation, it could reach 50 million dollars. The risk assessment in dollar terms alone is very scary, reinforcing the typical conspiracy theorists conjecture about insurance and underwriters companies in collusion with the airline industry. By placing profits first before the safety and lives of their passengers, conspiracy theorists never had a better excuse in thinking so. But is there any truth to this?
A very entertaining science program on the Discovery Channel called Mythbusters routinely dispel and test suspected myths like the one previously mentioned by performing visually extravagant but valid scientific experiments that had gained them a cult following – especially to the younger viewers who desperately needed scientific enlightenment. In one episode, they did an experiment to test the validity of the myth that the brace position is designed to kill airline passengers during an emergency landing. Their high tech sensor loaded (actually they used postal / parcel service shock measuring stickers) crash test dummy named “Buster” was used to substitute a human passenger in an emergency landing situation. Sure enough, Buster demonstrated that the brace position actually reduced the shock or G load to a typical passenger by as much as 20 G s. That’s 20 G s less shock compared to a passenger in a normal sitting position. That’s a very significant difference of an outcome between survival and death.
To evaluate the big picture on why this myth ever came about in the first place, let’s examine first the history of manned aviation. When the Wright Brothers first demonstrated their newfound prowess of manned flight, they spawned a host of barnstormers i.e. early aviation enthusiasts. Even though they are very much popular and widespread, most people back then were still deathly scared by flying. Even witnessing a plane flying 30 feet above their heads is enough to terrify them even though there’s also a large majority who are curious to experience themselves the magic of flight. So when business entrepreneurs started the airline business back then, they have to convince the people how safe their planes are – or at least they cared about the safety of their passengers. And since airline companies are still around till this day, then safety concerns did came hand and hand with profits.
Sadly, there’s this other thing that the conspiracy theorists overlook that was always part and parcel of profit generating enterprises – namely corporate social responsibility and ethical business governance. Even though these concepts only became unique selling points of customers quite recently. It’s only common sense that your customers and clients will only do business with you again if you treat them right. Even private security contractors are subscribing to the corporate social responsibility and ethical business governance fad by using the phrase “at least we’re not killing innocent civilians” as their unique selling point. Maybe conspiracy theorists need to study the history of aviation first. If these conspiracy theorists don’t find history or science as a “sexy subject” anymore, then they should blame the Board of Education, not the airline industry.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Risk Calculations: On the Mark or Missing by a Mile?
Ever since it was mathematically proven that air travel is actually much safer than driving, risk calculations has become a perennial topic of discussion by anyone too worried to be worried. Are we being scared unnecessarily?
By: Vanessa Uy
There’s this very funny anecdote that I heard quite recently about how much air travel is safer compared to your typical “little girls bike”. You also probably heard it before. The punch line goes: “At least when my little girl falls from her bike, its not a 30,000 foot drop. This could very well serve as a rationale for the toy manufacturer Mattel to start competing with the jumbo jet manufacturer Boeing once the scandal over the high lead content of Mattel’s PROC-manufactured toy products eventually dies down.
Basing from such tales of perception and of opinion from the general public with regards to the risks that they face everyday, its no wonder that people who do risk assessment for a living harbor a pre-conceived notion. A notion that the general public is largely irrational when it comes to risk assessment, but there’s a kernel of truth regarding this matter.
Calculations used for risk assessment are based on averages, so they have limited value to the individual. Air travel, for instance, may be safe in terms of deaths per passenger mile. But that says little about the specific flight you are about to board. The very one that will subject you and your fellow passengers to a number of takeoffs and landings in bad weather, not to mention the flight crews’ forays into alcohol addled hedonism that previous night.
To define a certain risk implies that the risk assessor resorts to foretelling, but the accuracy of the math’s predictive power can be misleading. This is so because risk assessors’ calculations – by and large – always use historical data while adhering to the dubious assumption that the future will behave like the past. It seems like risk and uncertainty always goes hand in hand, even under mathematical scrutiny.
On the other end of the risk spectrum, examine for a moment the unthinkable scenario when almost all life on Earth – including humans - being wiped out by a catastrophic comet, meteorite or asteroid impact. Due to Hollywood cashing in the legitimate concerns of astronomers warning us of this “Doomsday Scenario”, the general public has been fascinated on what might happen as we prepare, during, and after a catastrophic asteroid or comet impact during the last ten years or so.
One asteroid that got famous after receiving it’s “15 Minutes of Fame” in the mainstream media spotlight is 99942 Apophis. This 320 meter wide asteroid was first discovered in 2004 and was supposedly calculated to hit our planet on April 13, 2029. Though by no means dead certain, estimates for the asteroid 99942 Apophis hitting us ranges from a “scary” 1 in 27 to NASA’s “somewhat reassuring” official estimate of 1 in 45,000.
As of late, NASA’s official estimate has recently recalculated by an “astronomically curious” high school student using off the shelf computer software. Using such modest resources, the student’s findings that the asteroid 99942 Apophis now has a probability of 1 in 459 in hitting our planet. The student’s findings were later proven by NASA to be correct. But for those who based their calculations via current geological evidence that catastrophic impacts that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years occur regularly at 13 million- year intervals. Therefore the chances of our planet being hit catastrophically by a comet or asteroid in a span of one year comes to about 1 in 20,000. Even though I’m worried, I do keep my worries to an absolute-minimum. Anymore than that is an unacceptable risk to my overall wellbeing.
By: Vanessa Uy
There’s this very funny anecdote that I heard quite recently about how much air travel is safer compared to your typical “little girls bike”. You also probably heard it before. The punch line goes: “At least when my little girl falls from her bike, its not a 30,000 foot drop. This could very well serve as a rationale for the toy manufacturer Mattel to start competing with the jumbo jet manufacturer Boeing once the scandal over the high lead content of Mattel’s PROC-manufactured toy products eventually dies down.
Basing from such tales of perception and of opinion from the general public with regards to the risks that they face everyday, its no wonder that people who do risk assessment for a living harbor a pre-conceived notion. A notion that the general public is largely irrational when it comes to risk assessment, but there’s a kernel of truth regarding this matter.
Calculations used for risk assessment are based on averages, so they have limited value to the individual. Air travel, for instance, may be safe in terms of deaths per passenger mile. But that says little about the specific flight you are about to board. The very one that will subject you and your fellow passengers to a number of takeoffs and landings in bad weather, not to mention the flight crews’ forays into alcohol addled hedonism that previous night.
To define a certain risk implies that the risk assessor resorts to foretelling, but the accuracy of the math’s predictive power can be misleading. This is so because risk assessors’ calculations – by and large – always use historical data while adhering to the dubious assumption that the future will behave like the past. It seems like risk and uncertainty always goes hand in hand, even under mathematical scrutiny.
On the other end of the risk spectrum, examine for a moment the unthinkable scenario when almost all life on Earth – including humans - being wiped out by a catastrophic comet, meteorite or asteroid impact. Due to Hollywood cashing in the legitimate concerns of astronomers warning us of this “Doomsday Scenario”, the general public has been fascinated on what might happen as we prepare, during, and after a catastrophic asteroid or comet impact during the last ten years or so.
One asteroid that got famous after receiving it’s “15 Minutes of Fame” in the mainstream media spotlight is 99942 Apophis. This 320 meter wide asteroid was first discovered in 2004 and was supposedly calculated to hit our planet on April 13, 2029. Though by no means dead certain, estimates for the asteroid 99942 Apophis hitting us ranges from a “scary” 1 in 27 to NASA’s “somewhat reassuring” official estimate of 1 in 45,000.
As of late, NASA’s official estimate has recently recalculated by an “astronomically curious” high school student using off the shelf computer software. Using such modest resources, the student’s findings that the asteroid 99942 Apophis now has a probability of 1 in 459 in hitting our planet. The student’s findings were later proven by NASA to be correct. But for those who based their calculations via current geological evidence that catastrophic impacts that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years occur regularly at 13 million- year intervals. Therefore the chances of our planet being hit catastrophically by a comet or asteroid in a span of one year comes to about 1 in 20,000. Even though I’m worried, I do keep my worries to an absolute-minimum. Anymore than that is an unacceptable risk to my overall wellbeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
