Risk controller: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|risk|}} | {{a|risk|{{image|Shit fan|jpg|A [[risk controller]] asleep at the switch yesterday}}}}One of those fabulous men and women whose job is to make sure the institution they represent doesn’t unwittingly poke itself in the eye. | ||
One of those fabulous men and women whose job is to make sure the institution they represent doesn’t unwittingly poke itself in the eye. | |||
People in these departments: | People in these departments: | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
*[[Compliance]] | *[[Compliance]] | ||
These poor people are the wrong side of an asymmetric option: no [[risk controller]] ever got | These poor people are the wrong side of an asymmetric option: no [[risk controller]] ever got credit for approving a deal that was colossally profitable, but plenty were eviscerated and left to dangle outside the city walls for neglecting to stop one that wasn’t<ref>This is, of course, outrageous hyperbole. No risk officer was so much as gruffly reprimanded for not anticipating the forthcoming [[global financial crisis]]: the [[circle of escalation]] saw to that.</ref> so you shouldn’t begrudge them the outlandishly risk-averse behavior in which they will inevitably indulge. | ||
After all, we spend large parts of our daily life catering for contingencies that will never happen. Look upon a [[control function]] as a sort of [[insurance]] against {{risk|risk}}. You pay a cost/premium upfront (in time and organisational resources) to have someone manage the {{risk|risk}}. But are these meaningful contingencies or just comfort blankets – paper tigers and imaginary monsters that, as {{risk|individual}}s we are professionally incentivised to treat as real? | |||
The [[collective noun]] for a group of [[risk controller]]s is a [[palaver]]. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{wasteprov|Over-processing}} - how risk controllers are incentivised to create | *{{wasteprov|Over-processing}} - how risk controllers are incentivised to create [[waste]] in the negotiation process. | ||
*[[Chicken licken]] | *[[Chicken licken]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:04, 14 April 2023
|
Risk Anatomy™
|
One of those fabulous men and women whose job is to make sure the institution they represent doesn’t unwittingly poke itself in the eye.
People in these departments:
These poor people are the wrong side of an asymmetric option: no risk controller ever got credit for approving a deal that was colossally profitable, but plenty were eviscerated and left to dangle outside the city walls for neglecting to stop one that wasn’t[1] so you shouldn’t begrudge them the outlandishly risk-averse behavior in which they will inevitably indulge.
After all, we spend large parts of our daily life catering for contingencies that will never happen. Look upon a control function as a sort of insurance against risk. You pay a cost/premium upfront (in time and organisational resources) to have someone manage the risk. But are these meaningful contingencies or just comfort blankets – paper tigers and imaginary monsters that, as individuals we are professionally incentivised to treat as real?
The collective noun for a group of risk controllers is a palaver.
See also
- Over-processing - how risk controllers are incentivised to create waste in the negotiation process.
- Chicken licken
References
- ↑ This is, of course, outrageous hyperbole. No risk officer was so much as gruffly reprimanded for not anticipating the forthcoming global financial crisis: the circle of escalation saw to that.