To: axial who wrote (8559 ) 12/30/2004 2:02:50 PM From: Frank A. Coluccio Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 46821 Great reply, Jim, touching on some new and interesting points, while addressing my earlier reply. My view of the financial instrumentalists' modalities, when juxtaposed with those of conservationists, isn't as much a cynical observation on my part as it is a statement that the two groups are not aligned with one another in their core areas of concern, other than each of them desiring to come out whole. For example, by leveraging correctly - even in an entirely scrupulous manner, while adhering to the most widely accepted regulations and standards - it occurs to me that it's entirely conceivable that one side stands to make fortunes at the expense of the other side's catastrophies. Are sufficient regs from the SEC and the Commodities sector in place to ensure that this doesn't happen under circumstances tht are less than scrupulous? Is this even a goal worthy of chasing? Can such an end even be achieved, given the layers of complexity that are involved in derivative- and hedge fund- trading activities? Contingency Capitalization is a topic I briefly discussed a while back with a friend of mine who happens to be a risk manager, but I'll have to review its implications as they apply here and maybe return to this topic at a later time. From my memory of the discussion, however, I recall my having some difficulty in discerning any matrial difference between how this new moniker varied significantly from other financial management frameworks aimed at protecting one's assets. If you have those weather-related contingency plots you referred to, and would like to pin them up here, then by all means please do so. FAC frank@fttx.org