Coping strategy: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Coping strategy (view source)

Revision as of 13:21, 11 October 2021

3,406 bytes added , 11 October 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,856

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 *'''Exoneration''': means by which you, personally, avoid being blamed for things that did happen and were catastrophic. Disclaimers, disclosures, weasel wording.
-The running cost of exercising coping strategies is inversely proportional to their usefulness. Hiring expert managers to monitor and avoid risk is a full-time, up-front cost. Limits and enforcement tend to be costly to implement. Exoneration costs nothing day-to-day until after the fact, at which point it is both useless and ineffective. If the loss threshold is high enough, you ''will'' get fired.
+The running cost of exercising coping strategies is inversely proportional to their usefulness.
+'''Avoiding''' emergent risks by having expert managers to scan the horizon for them as you go is a full-time, up-front cost and, you know, if you pay monkeys you get peanuts.
+'''Setting limits''' and then managing them is easier, seeing as a machine can do the heavy lifting there, but you generally need risk officers to set the limits and operations staff to keep an eye on them.
+'''Enforcement''' is a bit cheaper yet: there’s all that unseemly haggling about [[NAV trigger]]s upfront of course, but then, beyond monitoring to see if they have been hit, which is no more of a burden than monitoring credit lines, it is free, for all agreements, for all times, except those troublesome handful you actually need to enforce. Even that is pretty cheap, if you have been margining properly but should you get into a squabble that needs a court to sort it out, those costs will rise.
+There is also a halfway house which is ''having'' legal protections but, having signed the docs in 2003 and stuck them in a drawer, not knowing what they are {{shitfan}}, and only then finding out through the voyage of discovery which is calling up the [[legal eagle]]s and asking what them what the hell to do.
+'''Exoneration''', needless to say, costs nothing day-to-day until after the fact, at which point it is both useless and ineffective. If the loss threshold is high enough, you ''will'' get fired.
+So what is the lesson with coping strategies? ''You get what you pay for''.
+===Accidents===
+From Charles Perrow’s {{Br|The Next Catastrophe}}: accidents ''will'' happen. Four strategies for coping: three focus on the accident, one focuses on your organisation.
+===== The Accident =====
+*'''Minimise''' chance that accidents happen.
+*'''Limit''' damage accidents can cause.
+*'''Reduce''' '''vulnerability''' to accidents.
+*'''Respond''' when accidents  happen.
+====== Vulnerability to accidents ======
+Assuming accidents ''will'' happen, reduce vulnerability to them. Vulnerability comes in the form of unusual [[concentrations]]:
+* '''Energy''': in a financial services firm, call this financial risk, or profit-and-loss generators
+* '''Population''': different models of [[distributed network]]. Compare “hub and spoke” models like airports (fragile — take out a hub and large parts of the system are inoperable) with “multiple-node” networks like the internet (robust — take out a node and everything can flow a different way).
+* '''Political power''': increases the vulnerability to harm from [[executive failure]].
+{| class="wikitable"
+|+
+!
+!Avoidance
+!Damage Limitation
+!Reaction
+!Aftermath
+|-
+|Strategies
+|Know your client; have good data
+Manage relationship
+Monitor trades
+Due diligence
+|Credit lines
+Trading limits
+Red flags
+Security/collateral
+|Close-out
+Events of default
+Security
+|Internal enquiry
+Regulatory enquiry
+Litigation
+Disciplinary
+|-
+|Environment
+|Calm, orderly, timely, systematic, thorough, inquisitive, patient.
+The object is not to be satisfied there is no risk but to to identify where ''is'' the risk.
+|On alert.
+Stressed, but solvent.
+|Chaos: Panic, Urgency, Volatility, Fog of war
+|Recriminatory
+Coloured by hindsight
+Constructing a new narrative
+Designed to attribute blame (elsewhere)
+|-
+|Information quality
+|High; unpressured.
+Good lines of communication, functioning well.
+|Adequate. Communication will deteriorate as the situation gets worse. Counterparts may be economical with information
+|At this point, it is likely the information you had was already bad; it will now be worse
+|Limited: slow to emerge; vetted; filtered; coloured; constrained; restricted to “optimising facts”
+|-
+|Effectiveness
+|High
+|Medium
+|Low
+|Hostile
+|}