Member Info for Dorfan

Trouble

So you called these people narcissists before knowing allegedly they actually were by a professional. Isn’t that rather presumptuous of you and pre judging by yourself?

Can you name these individuals and the professionals who came to this conclusion? I never saw any evidence that a professional had confirmed these cases. You just repeatedly kept calling them narcissists.

Trouble

“ Just to say that I hate attaching labels to anyone i.e. left and right”

So why in the past have you used called someone a narcissist then?

I can give you dates and times if you wish.

Trouble

Here is the answer to the saying earlier that you crave an answer for.

The original saying (often attributed to Charles Krauthammer) implies a difference in the type of negative judgment each side makes:

The right is described as viewing the left's ideas as foolish, misguided, or unintelligent. The implication is that the left has their facts wrong or fails to understand how the world works, but not necessarily that they are bad people.

The left is described as viewing the right's actions or stances as immoral or "evil". The implication is that the right is motivated by malice or a lack of compassion, rather than a lack of intelligence.

Trouble

Go and look up on the internet the quote ‘The left think the right are evil, the right think the left are misguided’. I can’t believe you haven’t read it before, it is a well known one.

You asked me directly if I thought you were a woman. None of my posts have questioned your gender, so why ask me directly to answer a question I never inferred you were?

Trouble

So you mention two other forum members who allegedly questioned your gender and then without any evidence claim I have as well. So, show me where I have questioned your gender? Making things up as usual and spreading lies, be careful where you continue with this.

If you want I can actually post dates and times of a few instances where you have printed ‘fck’. Would you like me to quote them?

Trouble

Where have I ever questioned your gender?

Trouble

“ I only use Whoops to avoid bad language - surely my posting history speaks for itself.”

Your past indicates you were quite prolific in using the ‘fck’ word, I guess this isn’t bad language.

@ASI

Lloyds have a ‘Decision science’ team which looks at risks. If you AI Decision Science you will find the proof you seek about hypothesis, probability and conjecture etc. I will let you DYOR .

ASI - then you can show me that LLoyds don’t use hypotheses, conjecture and probabilities in its risk modelling then.

ASI

“ that’s your suggestion (with plenty of input from unverified AI data)”

So when I use AI it can’t be trusted as it is All unverified.

Yet when you use the same AI it is all TRUSTED and VERIFIED as being correct.

Others have said this many times, I haven’t as yet but it will be my first to you, you are very much a hypocrite and strongly believe that you are the only one that can be right. Very much a trait of the far left.

STP

“ Recently, I've been seeing too much speculation on this forum!”

I’m impressed that you have been able to keep up with it all then.

@ASI

The question:

Do risk models in Lloyds bank use conjecture, hypothesis and possibilities to make decisions

The answer:

Yes, risk models at Lloyds Bank, like those in the wider banking sector, inherently rely on conjecture, hypothesis, and the exploration of possibilities. This is particularly evident in their use of stress testing, scenario analysis, and the modeling of complex or emerging risks.

Role of Hypothesis and Conjecture

Modeling Assumptions: While based on historical data where possible, internal risk models require assumptions (hypotheses) about how risks behave and interact. For instance, modeling the impact of higher capital requirements necessitates hypotheses about how this would affect a bank's cost of funds.

Expert Judgement: For novel or ill-defined risks, such as certain types of behavioral or operational risk, expert judgement (a form of informed conjecture) is used to set the initial model framework. For example, the bank defines behavioral risk based on "habitual patterns of behaviour" that lead to future issues, which are initially informed by expert assessments.

Regulatory Scrutiny: These hypotheses and conjectures are not arbitrary. They are reviewed and approved through internal governance procedures, as evidenced in Lloyds Bank's Pillar 3 disclosures.

Role of Possibilities and Scenarios

Stress Testing: Lloyds Bank participates in stress tests orchestrated by the Bank of England (BoE) that are built around "hypothetical but plausible" scenarios. These tests are not forecasts but explore extreme possibilities, such as severe economic downturns, high inflation, and significant falls in property prices, to assess the bank's resilience.

Scenario Analysis: The bank uses its "Capital and Liquidity Contingency Framework" to consider different hypothetical scenarios during times of stress. This involves identifying key metrics and associated actions for various potential states of the economy.

Emerging Risks: As highlighted by KPMG and other risk assessments, banks must use scenario-driven evaluations to deal with emerging risks, including those related to technology, geopolitics, and climate events, that lack sufficient historical data.

In short, while Lloyds Bank employs sophisticated data-driven models, these models are structured and informed by expert judgment, testable hypotheses, and the exploration of various potential future scenarios.

ASI

“ risk model…..”

Are you saying Lloyds uses hypotheses, conjecture, supposition, predictions in its day to day business?

Surely this has to be frowned on as not being accurate and factual to make real decisions?

I see the Chuckle brothers are back in sync again

Probabilities and possibilities begin as conjectures or hypotheses.

Like to put a wager on that?

ASI

“ Lloyds is best avoided as it’s too exposed to other potential bad news on the horizon.”

I have to laugh here.

When I post about future issues looming up you crawl all over my posts downing them saying it is speculation, conjecture etc etc and we can’t factor it in, then you go and make the above statement.

How did the correction go today?

I have as much faith in Lagarde as I do for Reeves, which is not a lot, just a personal overview, don’t take it personally.

STP - I see words like ‘could’, ‘risk’ and ‘likely’ are being used.

Aren’t these words that are subjective, speculative and looking to something possibly happening in the future? These events have not happened yet so we can’t rely on this information to be factual, real and actual.

Didn’t we have a long discussion a little while ago about being speculative and how it can’t be used and relied upon?