Banks’ Risk Endogenous to Strategic Management Choices

Use of variability of profits and other accounting‐based ratios in order to estimate a firm's risk of insolvency is a well‐established concept in management and economics. We argue that these measures fail to approximate the true level of risk accurately because managers consider other strategic choices and goals when making risky decisions. Instead, we propose an econometric model that incorporates current and past strategic choices to estimate risk from the profit function. Specifically, we extend the well‐established multiplicative error model to allow for the endogeneity of the uncertainty component. We demonstrate the power of the model using a large sample of US banks and show that our estimates predict the accelerated bank risk that led to the subprime crisis in 2007. Our measure of risk also predicts the probability of bank default both in the period of the default but also well in advance of this default and before conventional measures of bank risk.     

Uncertain Numbers and Uncertainty in the Selection of Input Distributions—Consequences for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Contaminated Land

Risks from exposure to contaminated land are often assessed with the aid of mathematical models. The current probabilistic approach is a considerable improvement on previous deterministic risk assessment practices, in that it attempts to characterize uncertainty and variability. However, some inputs continue to be assigned as precise numbers, while others are characterized as precise probability distributions. Such precision is hard to justify, and we show in this article how rounding errors and distribution assumptions can affect an exposure assessment. The outcome of traditional deterministic point estimates and Monte Carlo simulations were compared to probability bounds analyses. Assigning all scalars as imprecise numbers (intervals prescribed by significant digits) added uncertainty to the deterministic point estimate of about one order of magnitude. Similarly, representing probability distributions as probability boxes added several orders of magnitude to the uncertainty of the probabilistic estimate. This indicates that the size of the uncertainty in such assessments is actually much greater than currently reported. The article suggests that full disclosure of the uncertainty may facilitate decision making in opening up a negotiation window. In the risk analysis process, it is also an ethical obligation to clarify the boundary between the scientific and social domains.     

Optimal Security Investments and Extreme Risk

In the aftermath of 9/11, concern over security increased dramatically in both the public and the private sector. Yet, no clear algorithm exists to inform firms on the amount and the timing of security investments to mitigate the impact of catastrophic risks. The goal of this article is to devise an optimum investment strategy for firms to mitigate exposure to catastrophic risks, focusing on how much to invest and when to invest. The latter question addresses the issue of whether postponing a risk mitigating decision is an optimal strategy or not. Accordingly, we develop and estimate both a one‐period model and a multiperiod model within the framework of extreme value theory (EVT). We calibrate these models using probability measures for catastrophic terrorism risks associated with attacks on the food sector. We then compare our findings with the purchase of catastrophic risk insurance.     

Failure Probability Under Parameter Uncertainty

In many problems of risk analysis, failure is equivalent to the event of a random risk factor exceeding a given threshold. Failure probabilities can be controlled if a decisionmaker is able to set the threshold at an appropriate level. This abstract situation applies, for example, to environmental risks with infrastructure controls; to supply chain risks with inventory controls; and to insurance solvency risks with capital controls. However, uncertainty around the distribution of the risk factor implies that parameter error will be present and the measures taken to control failure probabilities may not be effective. We show that parameter uncertainty increases the probability (understood as expected frequency) of failures. For a large class of loss distributions, arising from increasing transformations of location‐scale families (including the log‐normal, Weibull, and Pareto distributions), the article shows that failure probabilities can be exactly calculated, as they are independent of the true (but unknown) parameters. Hence it is possible to obtain an explicit measure of the effect of parameter uncertainty on failure probability. Failure probability can be controlled in two different ways: (1) by reducing the nominal required failure probability, depending on the size of the available data set, and (2) by modifying of the distribution itself that is used to calculate the risk control. Approach (1) corresponds to a frequentist/regulatory view of probability, while approach (2) is consistent with a Bayesian/personalistic view. We furthermore show that the two approaches are consistent in achieving the required failure probability. Finally, we briefly discuss the effects of data pooling and its systemic risk implications.     

On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk,Vulnerability, and Resilience

Recently, considerable attention has been paid to a systems‐based approach to risk, vulnerability, and resilience analysis. It is argued that risk, vulnerability, and resilience are inherently and fundamentally functions of the states of the system and its environment. Vulnerability is defined as the manifestation of the inherent states of the system that can be subjected to a natural hazard or be exploited to adversely affect that system, whereas resilience is defined as the ability of the system to withstand a major disruption within acceptable degradation parameters and to recover within an acceptable time, and composite costs, and risks. Risk, on the other hand, is probability based, defined by the probability and severity of adverse effects (i.e., the consequences). In this article, we look more closely into this approach. It is observed that the key concepts are inconsistent in the sense that the uncertainty (probability) dimension is included for the risk definition but not for vulnerability and resilience. In the article, we question the rationale for this inconsistency. The suggested approach is compared with an alternative framework that provides a logically defined structure for risk, vulnerability, and resilience, where all three concepts are incorporating the uncertainty (probability) dimension.     

Structure of Uncertainty and Decision Making: An Experimental Investigation*

Decisions in the real world usually involve imprecise information or uncertainty about the precesses by which outcomes may be determined. This research reports the results of a laboratory experiment which examined whether the structure of uncertainty, namely, both the center and the range of the probability distribution describing the uncertainty, is an important determinant of choice. Specifically, it examines how the uncertainty of audit by the Internal Revenue Service of income tax returns affects taxpayers' decisions about intentional noncompliance. The context is relevant as almost nothing is known about how taxpayers assess detection risks using the probability information they have. The study focuses on intentional noncompliance. The factors affecting it are distinct and separate from those affecting unintentional noncompliance. Other factors that affect intentional tax noncompliance, such as risk, tax rates, and penalty rates, were controlled in the experiment. It was hypothesized that the lower the mean and the lesser the range (ambiguity) of the perceived audit probability, the greater the international noncompliance. As hypothesized, the analysis indicates that both the mean and the range of the perceived audit probability rate affect intentional noncompliance, though the effect of ambiguity is greater at a relatively higher level of mean. This result suggests that the strength of the information describing an uncertain event is captured better by both the mean and the range of the uncertainty than either of those components singly.     

When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?

While scientific studies may help conflicting stakeholders come to agreement on a best management option or policy, often they do not. We review the factors affecting trust in the efficacy and objectivity of scientific studies in an analytical‐deliberative process where conflict is present, and show how they may be incorporated in an extension to the traditional Bayesian decision model. The extended framework considers stakeholders who differ in their prior beliefs regarding the probability of possible outcomes (in particular, whether a proposed technology is hazardous), differ in their valuations of these outcomes, and differ in their assessment of the ability of a proposed study to resolve the uncertainty in the outcomes and their hazards—as measured by their perceived false positive and false negative rates for the study. The Bayesian model predicts stakeholder‐specific preposterior probabilities of consensus, as well as pathways for increasing these probabilities, providing important insights into the value of scientific information in an analytic‐deliberative decision process where agreement is sought. It also helps to identify the interactions among perceived risk and benefit allocations, scientific beliefs, and trust in proposed scientific studies when determining whether a consensus can be achieved. The article provides examples to illustrate the method, including an adaptation of a recent decision analysis for managing the health risks of electromagnetic fields from high voltage transmission lines.     

The Quantitative Estimation of IT‐Related Risk Probabilities

How well can people estimate IT‐related risk? Although estimating risk is a fundamental activity in software management and risk is the basis for many decisions, little is known about how well IT‐related risk can be estimated at all. Therefore, we executed a risk estimation experiment with 36 participants. They estimated the probabilities of IT‐related risks and we investigated the effect of the following factors on the quality of the risk estimation: the estimator's age, work experience in computing, (self‐reported) safety awareness and previous experience with this risk, the absolute value of the risk's probability, and the effect of knowing the estimates of the other participants (see: Delphi method). Our main findings are: risk probabilities are difficult to estimate. Younger and inexperienced estimators were not significantly worse than older and more experienced estimators, but the older and more experienced subjects better used the knowledge gained by knowing the other estimators' results. Persons with higher safety awareness tend to overestimate risk probabilities, but can better estimate ordinal ranks of risk probabilities. Previous own experience with a risk leads to an overestimation of its probability (unlike in other fields like medicine or disasters, where experience with a disease leads to more realistic probability estimates and nonexperience to an underestimation).     

Probability and Possibility‐Based Representations of Uncertainty in Fault Tree Analysis

Expert knowledge is an important source of input to risk analysis. In practice, experts might be reluctant to characterize their knowledge and the related (epistemic) uncertainty using precise probabilities. The theory of possibility allows for imprecision in probability assignments. The associated possibilistic representation of epistemic uncertainty can be combined with, and transformed into, a probabilistic representation; in this article, we show this with reference to a simple fault tree analysis. We apply an integrated (hybrid) probabilistic‐possibilistic computational framework for the joint propagation of the epistemic uncertainty on the values of the (limiting relative frequency) probabilities of the basic events of the fault tree, and we use possibility‐probability (probability‐possibility) transformations for propagating the epistemic uncertainty within purely probabilistic and possibilistic settings. The results of the different approaches (hybrid, probabilistic, and possibilistic) are compared with respect to the representation of uncertainty about the top event (limiting relative frequency) probability. Both the rationale underpinning the approaches and the computational efforts they require are critically examined. We conclude that the approaches relevant in a given setting depend on the purpose of the risk analysis, and that further research is required to make the possibilistic approaches operational in a risk analysis context.     

Asteroid Risk Assessment: A Probabilistic Approach

Following the 2013 Chelyabinsk event, the risks posed by asteroids attracted renewed interest, from both the scientific and policy‐making communities. It reminded the world that impacts from near‐Earth objects (NEOs), while rare, have the potential to cause great damage to cities and populations. Point estimates of the risk (such as mean numbers of casualties) have been proposed, but because of the low‐probability, high‐consequence nature of asteroid impacts, these averages provide limited actionable information. While more work is needed to further refine its input distributions (e.g., NEO diameters), the probabilistic model presented in this article allows a more complete evaluation of the risk of NEO impacts because the results are distributions that cover the range of potential casualties. This model is based on a modularized simulation that uses probabilistic inputs to estimate probabilistic risk metrics, including those of rare asteroid impacts. Illustrative results of this analysis are presented for a period of 100 years. As part of this demonstration, we assess the effectiveness of civil defense measures in mitigating the risk of human casualties. We find that they are likely to be beneficial but not a panacea. We also compute the probability—but not the consequences—of an impact with global effects (“cataclysm”). We conclude that there is a continued need for NEO observation, and for analyses of the feasibility and risk‐reduction effectiveness of space missions designed to deflect or destroy asteroids that threaten the Earth.     

Using Probabilistic Terrorism Risk Modeling for Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis: Application to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative in the Land Environment

This article presents a framework for using probabilistic terrorism risk modeling in regulatory analysis. We demonstrate the framework with an example application involving a regulation under consideration, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative for the Land Environment, (WHTI‐L). First, we estimate annualized loss from terrorist attacks with the Risk Management Solutions (RMS) Probabilistic Terrorism Model. We then estimate the critical risk reduction, which is the risk‐reducing effectiveness of WHTI‐L needed for its benefit, in terms of reduced terrorism loss in the United States, to exceed its cost. Our analysis indicates that the critical risk reduction depends strongly not only on uncertainties in the terrorism risk level, but also on uncertainty in the cost of regulation and how casualties are monetized. For a terrorism risk level based on the RMS standard risk estimate, the baseline regulatory cost estimate for WHTI‐L, and a range of casualty cost estimates based on the willingness‐to‐pay approach, our estimate for the expected annualized loss from terrorism ranges from $2.7 billion to $5.2 billion. For this range in annualized loss, the critical risk reduction for WHTI‐L ranges from 7% to 13%. Basing results on a lower risk level that results in halving the annualized terrorism loss would double the critical risk reduction (14–26%), and basing the results on a higher risk level that results in a doubling of the annualized terrorism loss would cut the critical risk reduction in half (3.5–6.6%). Ideally, decisions about terrorism security regulations and policies would be informed by true benefit‐cost analyses in which the estimated benefits are compared to costs. Such analyses for terrorism security efforts face substantial impediments stemming from the great uncertainty in the terrorist threat and the very low recurrence interval for large attacks. Several approaches can be used to estimate how a terrorism security program or regulation reduces the distribution of risks it is intended to manage. But, continued research to develop additional tools and data is necessary to support application of these approaches. These include refinement of models and simulations, engagement of subject matter experts, implementation of program evaluation, and estimating the costs of casualties from terrorism events.     

A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty in Seismic Risk Assessment

A better understanding of the uncertainty that exists in models used for seismic risk assessment is critical to improving risk-based decisions pertaining to earthquake safety. Current models estimating the probability of collapse of a building do not consider comprehensively the nature and impact of uncertainty. This article presents a model framework to enhance seismic risk assessment and thus gives decisionmakers a fuller understanding of the nature and limitations of the estimates. This can help ensure that risks are not over- or underestimated and the value of acquiring accurate data is appreciated fully. The methodology presented provides a novel treatment of uncertainties in input variables, their propagation through the model, and their effect on the results. The study presents ranges of possible annual collapse probabilities for different case studies on buildings in different parts of the world, exposed to different levels of seismicity, and with different vulnerabilities. A global sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the significance of uncertain variables. Two key outcomes are (1) that the uncertainty in ground-motion conversion equations has the largest effect on the uncertainty in the calculation of annual collapse probability; and (2) the vulnerability of a building appears to have an effect on the range of annual collapse probabilities produced, i.e., the level of uncertainty in the estimate of annual collapse probability, with less vulnerable buildings having a smaller uncertainty.     

Bootstrap Estimation of Benchmark Doses and Confidence Limits with Clustered Quantal Data

The benchmark dose (BMD) is an exposure level that would induce a small risk increase (BMR level) above the background. The BMD approach to deriving a reference dose for risk assessment of noncancer effects is advantageous in that the estimate of BMD is not restricted to experimental doses and utilizes most available dose-response information. To quantify statistical uncertainty of a BMD estimate, we often calculate and report its lower confidence limit (i.e., BMDL), and may even consider it as a more conservative alternative to BMD itself. Computation of BMDL may involve normal confidence limits to BMD in conjunction with the delta method. Therefore, factors, such as small sample size and nonlinearity in model parameters, can affect the performance of the delta method BMDL, and alternative methods are useful. In this article, we propose a bootstrap method to estimate BMDL utilizing a scheme that consists of a resampling of residuals after model fitting and a one-step formula for parameter estimation. We illustrate the method with clustered binary data from developmental toxicity experiments. Our analysis shows that with moderately elevated dose-response data, the distribution of BMD estimator tends to be left-skewed and bootstrap BMDL s are smaller than the delta method BMDL s on average, hence quantifying risk more conservatively. Statistically, the bootstrap BMDL quantifies the uncertainty of the true BMD more honestly than the delta method BMDL as its coverage probability is closer to the nominal level than that of delta method BMDL. We find that BMD and BMDL estimates are generally insensitive to model choices provided that the models fit the data comparably well near the region of BMD. Our analysis also suggests that, in the presence of a significant and moderately strong dose-response relationship, the developmental toxicity experiments under the standard protocol support dose-response assessment at 5% BMR for BMD and 95% confidence level for BMDL.     

Integrated Uncertainty Analysis for Ambient Pollutant Health Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Ozone Mortality Risk

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses health risk assessment to help inform its decisions in setting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's standard approach is to make epidemiologically‐based risk estimates based on a single statistical model selected from the scientific literature, called the “core” model. The uncertainty presented for “core” risk estimates reflects only the statistical uncertainty associated with that one model's concentration‐response function parameter estimate(s). However, epidemiologically‐based risk estimates are also subject to “model uncertainty,” which is a lack of knowledge about which of many plausible model specifications and data sets best reflects the true relationship between health and ambient pollutant concentrations. In 2002, a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) committee recommended that model uncertainty be integrated into EPA's standard risk analysis approach. This article discusses how model uncertainty can be taken into account with an integrated uncertainty analysis (IUA) of health risk estimates. It provides an illustrative numerical example based on risk of premature death from respiratory mortality due to long‐term exposures to ambient ozone, which is a health risk considered in the 2015 ozone NAAQS decision. This example demonstrates that use of IUA to quantitatively incorporate key model uncertainties into risk estimates produces a substantially altered understanding of the potential public health gain of a NAAQS policy decision, and that IUA can also produce more helpful insights to guide that decision, such as evidence of decreasing incremental health gains from progressive tightening of a NAAQS.     

Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs,Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution

Public perceptions of both risks and regulatory costs shape rational regulatory choices. Despite decades of risk perception studies, this article is the first on regulatory cost perceptions. A survey of 744 U.S. residents probed: (1) How knowledgeable are laypeople about regulatory costs incurred to reduce risks? (2) Do laypeople see official estimates of cost and benefit (lives saved) as accurate? (3) (How) do preferences for hypothetical regulations change when mean‐preserving spreads of uncertainty replace certain cost or benefit? and (4) (How) do preferences change when unequal interindividual distributions of hypothetical regulatory costs replace equal distributions? Respondents overestimated costs of regulatory compliance, while assuming agencies underestimate costs. Most assumed agency estimates of benefits are accurate; a third believed both cost and benefit estimates are accurate. Cost and benefit estimates presented without uncertainty were slightly preferred to those surrounded by “narrow uncertainty” (a range of costs or lives entirely within a personally‐calibrated zone without clear acceptance or rejection of tradeoffs). Certain estimates were more preferred than “wide uncertainty” (a range of agency estimates extending beyond these personal bounds, thus posing a gamble between favored and unacceptable tradeoffs), particularly for costs as opposed to benefits (but even for costs a quarter of respondents preferred wide uncertainty to certainty). Agency‐acknowledged uncertainty in general elicited mixed judgments of honesty and trustworthiness. People preferred egalitarian distributions of regulatory costs, despite skewed actual cost distributions, and preferred progressive cost distributions (the rich pay a greater than proportional share) to regressive ones. Efficient and socially responsive regulations require disclosure of much more information about regulatory costs and risks.     

Mlonte Carlo Techniques for Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis in Public Health Risk Assessments

Most public health risk assessments assume and combine a series of average, conservative, and worst-case values to derive a conservative point estimate of risk. This procedure has major limitations. This paper demonstrates a new methodology for extended uncertainty analyses in public health risk assessments using Monte Carlo techniques. The extended method begins as do some conventional methods--with the preparation of a spreadsheet to estimate exposure and risk. This method, however, continues by modeling key inputs as random variables described by probability density functions (PDFs). Overall, the technique provides a quantitative way to estimate the probability distributions for exposure and health risks within the validity of the model used. As an example, this paper presents a simplified case study for children playing in soils contaminated with benzene and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP).     

Treating and Drinking Well Water in the Presence of Health Risks from Arsenic Contamination: Results from a U.S. Hot Spot

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 regulates water quality in public drinking water supply systems but does not pertain to private domestic wells, often found in rural areas throughout the country. The recent decision to tighten the drinking water standard for arsenic from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb may therefore affect some households in rural communities, but may not directly reduce health risks for those on private wells. The article reports results from a survey conducted in a U.S. arsenic hot spot, the rural area of Churchill County, Nevada. This area has elevated levels of arsenic in groundwater. We find that a significant proportion of households on private wells are consuming drinking water with arsenic levels that pose a health risk. The decision to treat tap water for those on private wells in this area is modeled, and the predicted probability of treatment is used to help explain drinking water consumption. This probability represents behaviors relating to the household's perception of risk.     

Forecasting With Model Uncertainty: Representations and Risk Reduction

We consider forecasting with uncertainty about the choice of predictor variables. The researcher wants to select a model, estimate the parameters, and use the parameter estimates for forecasting. We investigate the distributional properties of a number of different schemes for model choice and parameter estimation, including: in‐sample model selection using the Akaike information criterion; out‐of‐sample model selection; and splitting the data into subsamples for model selection and parameter estimation. Using a weak‐predictor local asymptotic scheme, we provide a representation result that facilitates comparison of the distributional properties of the procedures and their associated forecast risks. This representation isolates the source of inefficiency in some of these procedures. We develop a simulation procedure that improves the accuracy of the out‐of‐sample and split‐sample methods uniformly over the local parameter space. We also examine how bootstrap aggregation (bagging) affects the local asymptotic risk of the estimators and their associated forecasts. Numerically, we find that for many values of the local parameter, the out‐of‐sample and split‐sample schemes perform poorly if implemented in the conventional way. But they perform well, if implemented in conjunction with our risk‐reduction method or bagging.