I’m not sure that in one post you can say that I’m at risk for hitting all 10 lights (meaning that there is risk in some degree for every potential outcome) and then in another post say that not all mortgage loans are “at risk”.
That’s a bit of a contradiction. Yes, there is some risk (however small) that any, or every loan in this country could default. Just as there is risk that I could hit every light. I may have failed to qualify the 30% with “reasonable risk”, or “high risk”.
Again, I just don’t like that the analysis said 19% of loans are “at risk”. Truthfully, all of the loans are at risk to some degree. Using the term “risk” is a slick way for an analysis to get his opinion and “prediction” out while being able to avoid putting down a hard number that could come back to bite him later. You see, by saying “risk”, he has a nice fat range of zero to 19% (even if he was slightly over 19%, I’m sure nobody would crucify him). If he said “expects”, he’d be held to a hard number of 19%. More than likely, that was his true meaning.
In the end, it is all semantics (as I believe you said in the other thread). We have a very rich language and we all use (or, should use) context to understand the writer’s message. I saw something much milder in PS’s title than some and caught the inference she was making. Other’s may not have. I can see the point being made by others (yes, it’s a stretch to directly link “risk” and “expect”), but I think way too much is being made of the “intent” of the writer (PS). I feel that she “read” Cagan’s meaning pretty well. The more you read analysis, you’ll see that they rarely speak in absolutes.
