The author of The Failure of Risk Management, Donald Hubbard, wrote me a very kind note with regards to my recent review of his book. He rightly pointed out that his view of unproven or failed risk management methods didn’t necessarily amount “virtiol”. Just because he asserts (and persuasively argues) that these methods are wrong doesn’t imply any motive beyond discerning the truth. I considered this when I wrote the article, that merely because one doesn’t follow the “he said, she said, on the one hand this, on the other hand the other” format of many academics and journalists doesn’t mean that one is being unfair. Beyond the compelling content, I actually think this break from a stale, purely dispassionate writing style is what makes this book a fun read (Taleb is good reading for the same reason). I’m sorry if that didn’t come through in the original review.
Published by James D. Meacham
I've been working in and around ethics, risk, governance, and compliance for three decades. My current role is as senior governance, risk, and compliance analyst at BlackLine, a Southern California Software-as-a-Service firm. Also writing at http://jamesdmeacham3.com. View all posts by James D. Meacham