Expected and at risk are completely different. Sadly, the term “at risk” is pretty vauge. “At risk” means there is some chance of success and some chance of failure. In this article that chance is never stated.
My issue with Powayseller is the way she turned a vauge statement into a very specific number. We don’t know how “at risk” those loans are yet Powayseller assumed they were at 100% risk.
Why assume %100 risk, then state it as fact, when the level of risk is simply not stated anywhere? That is the kind of bothersome powayseller conclusion jump that is so common in her posts.
sdrebear – you quote the definition, which uses the word “certain”. Then you claimed it doesn’t really mean certain. Not sure I follow you there.
Expect can also be an expected value, in probablilistic terms, which is different from those items at risk.
For example, one might consider 10% of the loans at 50-50 risk of defaulting, which results in an an expected value of 5% defaults. Powayseller is applying the expected value to the items at risk, which is incorrect, unless the risk is 100%.
