全面风险管理研究

全面风险管理不存在统一的模式,但由于其覆盖面广、技术复杂、整合程度高、信息传递频繁,因此要求企业合理设计全面风险管理的方法和程序,构建全面风险管理体系.     

基于GARCH-EVT-COPULA模型的外汇投资组合风险度量研究

基于巴塞尔协议和商业银行风险管理新视角,本文运用GARCH-EVT-COPULA模型构建了GARCH-EVT-Gaussian-COPULA和GARCH-EVT-t-COPULA两种方法,对美元、欧元、日元和港元四种人民币汇率的等权重投资组合风险进行了度量,优化了极值分布作为COPULA函数边际分布的多序列超阈值比例确定方法,并与历史模拟法、正态方法、蒙特卡罗方法三种传统方法和单用极值方法度量的VaR进行了比较并作返回检验.结果表明:GARCH-EVT-Gaussian-COPULA扣GARCH-EVT-t-COPULA两种方法符合巴塞尔协议的内部模型法(I--)对商业银行风险管理的要求,而且估计结果优于其他四种方法,其中,GARCH-EVT-Gaussian-COPU LA方法的估计结果比GARCH-EVT-t-COPULA方法更有利于节省商业银行的经济资本.     

VaR的一种模拟方法

在险价值作为一种风险管理的方法,到目前为止已成为国际范围内普遍使用的风险管理技术,严格定义了在险价值,并合作概率规划提供限确定是小价值的模型,同时给出了一种模拟方法。     

金融工程在企业风险管理中的应用和发展

金融工程是适应现代市场各种价格波动及其他金融难题而产生的一种现代金融方法,其核心是风险管理。本文结合我国实际,阐述了金融工程风险管理技术在企业风险管理和控制中的有效应用,对我国企业如何利用金融工程进行风险管理与控制,实施有效的财务风险管理策略进行了探讨。     

海上长输管道建设项目质量风险管理体系的建立

笔者以海上长输管道工程项目的风险管理方法和技术为基础,结合长输管道建设项目的特点及建设程序,深入研究了长输管道施工阶段的质量风险管理,论述了海上长输管道建设项目质量风险管理体系的建立.     

我国商业银行项目融资风险管理对策分析

面对当前我国的经济形势、银行融资环境和项目融资本身固有的风险特性,我国商业银行现有的风险管理方法已经无法应对目前的风险.只有通过健全风险管理机制、改善融资环境、引用先进风险管理技术,商业银行才能有效管理融资风险,提高项目融资的成功率.     

对我国商业银行操作风险的若干对策思考

<正>银行是经营风险的行业,传统的银行风险是指信用风险与市场风险,事实上这两种风险很早就引起金融机构的重视,并从19世纪70-80年代开始,就已经逐步形成了较为成熟的风险管理技术。但是,对操作风险(Operation Risk)来说,尽管该概念提出有很长的历史,但把操作风险作为银行风险管理的三大风险之一则是最近几年的事情。     

浅谈企业的财务风险管理

财务风险作为一种信号,能够全面综合反映企业的经营状况,财务风险管理已成为企业管理的一个重要课题.本文从企业的外部和内部两个方面对企业财务风险的成因进行分析,并对如何加强企业财务风险管理提出切实可行的措施.     

一个新的银行信用风险评估方法

本文以银行信用风险管理为例,将粗糙集和决策树两种具有互补优势的数据挖掘方法相结合,对客户信用做出归类分析判断,最后利用决策树生成决策规则.实践证明,这种方法忠于原始数据,提高了分类准确度,减小了决策树规模,具有良好的性能.     

基于项目的机构投资者集成风险管理模式

将企业项目管理平台引入机构投资者的风险管理体系,提出了一种具有战略柔性的集成风险管理模式,强调对风险管理目标、组织、方法、过程、信息和文化等各模块的统筹优化,并以项目为风险管理活动的基本单元,设计了各模块的动态网络结构.     

Summarizing Risk Using Risk Measures and Risk Indices

Our society is fascinated with risk in many different areas and disciplines. One of the main ways to describe and communicate the level of risk is through risk indices, which summarize risk using numbers or categories such as words, letters, or colors. These indices are used to communicate risks to the public, understand how risk is changing over time, compare among different risks, and support decision making. Given the different methods to construct risk indices, including flawed methods such as risk matrices, this article develops specific steps that analysts can follow to create a risk index. This article emphasizes the importance of describing risk with a probability distribution, developing a numerical risk measure that summarizes the probability distribution, and finally translating the risk measure to an index. Measuring the risk is the most difficult part and requires the analyst to summarize a probability distribution into one or possibly a few numbers. The risk measure can then be transformed to a numerical or categorical index. I apply the method outlined in this article to construct a risk index that compares the risk of fatalities in aviation and highway transportation.     

Characterizing Risk for Cumulative Risk Assessments

In assessing environmental health risks, the risk characterization step synthesizes information gathered in evaluating exposures to stressors together with dose–response relationships, characteristics of the exposed population, and external environmental conditions. This article summarizes key steps of a cumulative risk assessment (CRA) followed by a discussion of considerations for characterizing cumulative risks. Cumulative risk characterizations differ considerably from single chemical‐ or single source‐based risk characterization. CRAs typically focus on a specific population instead of a pollutant or pollutant source and should include an evaluation of all relevant sources contributing to the exposures in the population and other factors that influence dose–response relationships. Second, CRAs may include influential environmental and population‐specific conditions, involving multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors. Third, a CRA could examine multiple health effects, reflecting joint toxicity and the potential for toxicological interactions. Fourth, the complexities often necessitate simplifying methods, including judgment‐based and semi‐quantitative indices that collapse disparate data into numerical scores. Fifth, because of the higher dimensionality and potentially large number of interactions, information needed to quantify risk is typically incomplete, necessitating an uncertainty analysis. Three approaches that could be used for characterizing risks in a CRA are presented: the multiroute hazard index, stressor grouping by exposure and toxicity, and indices for screening multiple factors and conditions. Other key roles of the risk characterization in CRAs are also described, mainly the translational aspect of including a characterization summary for lay readers (in addition to the technical analysis), and placing the results in the context of the likely risk‐based decisions.     

Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Terrorism Risk

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), considerable efforts have been made to estimate the risks of terrorism and the cost effectiveness of security policies to reduce these risks. DHS, industry, and the academic risk analysis communities have all invested heavily in the development of tools and approaches that can assist decisionmakers in effectively allocating limited resources across the vast array of potential investments that could mitigate risks from terrorism and other threats to the homeland. Decisionmakers demand models, analyses, and decision support that are useful for this task and based on the state of the art. Since terrorism risk analysis is new, no single method is likely to meet this challenge. In this article we explore a number of existing and potential approaches for terrorism risk analysis, focusing particularly on recent discussions regarding the applicability of probabilistic and decision analytic approaches to bioterrorism risks and the Bioterrorism Risk Assessment methodology used by the DHS and criticized by the National Academies and others.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

This is a perspective article on foundational issues in risk assessment and management. The aim is to discuss the needs, obstacles, and challenges for the establishment of a renewed, strong scientific foundation for risk assessment and risk management suited for the current and future technological challenges. The focus is on (i) reviewing and discussing the present situation and (ii) identifying how to best proceed in the future, to develop the risk discipline in the directions needed. The article provides some reflections on the interpretation and understanding of the concept of “foundations of risk assessment and risk management” and the challenges therein. One main recommendation is that different arenas and moments for discussion are needed to specifically address foundational issues in a way that embraces the many disciplinary communities involved (from social scientists to engineers, from behavioral scientists to statisticians, from health physicists to lawyers, etc.). One such opportunity is sought in the constitution of a novel specialty group of the Society of Risk Analysis.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

In spite of the maturity reached by many of the methods used in risk assessment and risk management, broad consensus has not been established on fundamental concepts and principles. The risk fields still suffer from a lack of clarity on many key scientific pillars. The purpose of this article is to point to this situation and through some illustrating examples discuss the challenges that the fields here face. Moreover, the purpose of the article is to reflect on how to improve the present situation and enhance the risk fields. We argue that the establishment of some common scientific pillars as well as a strong and continuous research focus on foundational issues are critical success factors. The article specifically addresses the role of the peer‐reviewed journals and the international standards in the fields. We hope that the article can contribute to a revitalization of the discussion of foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management.     

Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk

Individuals’ perceptions and their interpersonal communication about a risk event, or risk talk, can play a significant role in the formation of societal responses to the risk event. As they formulate their risk opinions and speak to others, risk information can circulate through their social networks and contribute to the construction of their risk information environment. In the present study, Japanese citizens’ risk perception and risk talk were examined in the context of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear radiation risk. We hypothesized and found that the risk information environment and risk literacy (i.e., competencies to understand and use risk information) interact to influence their risk perception and risk talk. In particular, risk literacy tends to stabilize people's risk perceptions and their risk communications. Nevertheless, there were some subtle differences between risk perception and communication, suggesting the importance of further examination of interpersonal risk communication and its role in the societal responses to risk events.     

The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?

This paper examines the relationship between perceived risk and experience. This research addresses the processes by which people learn about risk and choose among real life prospects with associated uncertainties, risks and benefits. By comparing the impact of acute risk events with that of chronic risk events on public perception of risk during and after the events, this research focuses on the learning processes that characterize what kinds of risk events alter the perception of risk. Comparing materialized hazards at existing facilities with the risks associated with potential facilities, this research addresses risk choices among real life prospects. This study uses a classic pre-post quasi-experimental design. Surveys conducted in the Spring of 1992 on perceived and acceptable risk in Odessa and La Porte, Texas were conducted prior to risk events. Respondents from that survey were re-interviewed in the Spring of 1993 after the risk events to form a panel design. This paper analyzes the affect of risk events on perceived risk and the implications of these experiences for public policy concerning technological risk. The empirical results suggest that the social processes that construct and maintain risk in the public eye are at least as important as, if not more important than, the physical and psychological dimensions of risk.     

Risk Matrix Integrating Risk Attitudes Based on Utility Theory

Recent studies indicate that absence of the consideration of risk attitudes of decisionmakers in the risk matrix establishment process has become a major limitation. In order to evaluate risk in a more comprehensive manner, an approach to establish risk matrices that integrates risk attitudes based on utility theory is proposed. There are three main steps within this approach: (1) describing risk attitudes of decisionmakers by utility functions, (2) bridging the gap between utility functions and the risk matrix by utility indifference curves, and (3) discretizing utility indifference curves. A complete risk matrix establishment process based on practical investigations is introduced. This process utilizes decisionmakers’ answers to questionnaires to formulate required boundary values for risk matrix establishment and utility functions that effectively quantify their respective risk attitudes.