Talking Risk

Chapter 4: Part II

Since Noah was building the ark back then, this statistics thing seems to be a challenge. How do we assess that risk?

First, the objective, which in this case is “to provide accurate, timely and consistent data to stakeholders”.

Correct, and the risk is lateness and “wrongness”. If once or twice the data come out a day or two after the due date, all you going hear is ‘Central Bank always late’. And if by chance any of the numbers wrong, well is big headlines “Central Bank misleading the public!”

But a lot of the data that ECCB publishes comes from the member countries and on occasions it’s late; so the ECCB is not at fault for late publication.

What’s the next risk?

I know things can slip thru and we may have to publish a correction after the fact.

Let’s look at the risk of data error. If this happens too often, the public will question any data published by the ECCB after that, no matter who is at fault; the impact will be very high.

Actually, you are both making valid points so let’s break this down; let’s look at different risks affecting the objective.

Oh, so when the man ain’t get pay, he ain’t to be concerned about where the problem start but in this case, its ok to buss a Shaggy - “it wasn’t me.”

Ok, so that’s a 5 - serious reputational damage. And the likelihood …?

Related?? I just know you for the first time when you come to the Bank.

We have been doing this for a while now. So if there is an outlier or anomaly, it should be picked up during the review process.

That answer sounded very ‘Webster- ish’, so I saying maybe we are cousins. But, you have a point; and even though you might indicate the source, people don’t always watch that.

What about if data came in wrong from the member countries?

Eh, Eh, well you ain’t tell me we related.