81,912
edits
Known known: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Known known to Known known - Risk Article) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|risk|}}Also known as “the stable from which your horse has bolted”, which your [[risk]] and [[legal]] and management teams will accordingly obsess about, until the last guy who was there when the horse bolted has finally retired. Whereupon the [[paradigm]] will reset and said {{risk|risk}} will be demoted from a {{risk|known known}} to an {{risk|unknown known}} — if your organisation has a grip on history, or unknown | {{a|risk|}}Also known as “the stable from which your horse has bolted”, which your [[risk]] and [[legal]] and management teams will accordingly obsess about, until the last guy who was there when the horse bolted has finally retired. Whereupon the [[paradigm]] will reset and said {{risk|risk}} will be demoted from a {{risk|known known}} to an {{risk|unknown known}} — if your organisation has a grip on history, or an {{risk|unknown unknown}}, if it doesn’t. | ||
Great example: The [[Glass-Steagall Act]] of 1932, hastily enacted to address the, in hindsight, face-slappingly obvious opportunity for perfidy presented by allowing a [[financial institution]] to use its customer deposits to capitalise its investment banking — in the vernacular, “casino banking” — operations. The banks ploughed mom-and-pop savings into pump-and-dump boiler-room schemes which, during the pumping phase, was just fine, but in the dumping phase, when the dow fell off a cliff in 1929, led to bank runs, folks (largely moms and pops, and not bankers, by the way) throwing themselves off buildings and so on. Never again in our lifetime will we allow that, said they great and good of 1932, and so it proved. | Great example: The [[Glass-Steagall Act]] of 1932, hastily enacted to address the, in hindsight, face-slappingly obvious opportunity for perfidy presented by allowing a [[financial institution]] to use its customer deposits to capitalise its investment banking — in the vernacular, “casino banking” — operations. The banks ploughed mom-and-pop savings into pump-and-dump boiler-room schemes which, during the pumping phase, was just fine, but in the dumping phase, when the dow fell off a cliff in 1929, led to bank runs, folks (largely moms and pops, and not bankers, by the way) throwing themselves off buildings and so on. Never again in our lifetime will we allow that, said they great and good of 1932, and so it proved. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Anyhow, the point at which your legal department launches a global, multi-departmental, [[all-hands conference call|all-hands]] effort to [[Risk taxonomy|taxonomise the risk]] your institution faces, or describe a complete [[service catalog]] of all the activities your [[legal eagles]] can be expected to do, is classic evidence of empty-stable inspection. But hey — it keeps folk busy and it makes for fantastic charts, so knock yourselves out! | Anyhow, the point at which your legal department launches a global, multi-departmental, [[all-hands conference call|all-hands]] effort to [[Risk taxonomy|taxonomise the risk]] your institution faces, or describe a complete [[service catalog]] of all the activities your [[legal eagles]] can be expected to do, is classic evidence of empty-stable inspection. But hey — it keeps folk busy and it makes for fantastic charts, so knock yourselves out! | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Risk taxonomy]] | |||
*{{risk|Rumsfeld’s taxonomy}} | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||