[CraigJPerry]

>> still worth doing

This is really the point I’m wrestling with.

For example, I’m persuaded by Taleb’s criticism of Value At Risk models, VAR.

Plenty of people still value the use of VAR although it’s common to concede Taleb’s point that VAR claims to do the impossible - characterise rare events. The justification is simply, well what else would we do? There is sufficiently advanced use of VAR that people are willing to ignore the broken foundation.

I just can’t accept that we should continue blindly because in many day to day cases the model seems sound, even though we’re aware it’s fundamentally broken and we can’t detect when it broke until after the event.

[Discombulator]

From my understanding, Taleb criticizes the native use of synthetic quantitative models with strong assumptions like VaR because they give a wrong picture of the real risks. But I don’t think that his point is that risk management is worthless.

[CraigJPerry]

VAR isn't the sum total of risk management strategy. It's just a faulty one that's still heavily relied upon today despite this knowledge.