Ann: REH - ASX Announcement Equity Raise, page-40

I'm not going to get drawn into this debate, as I am not up with what has been discussed, and I just don't have the inclination, right now, and maybe never.

I would define risk as the possibility of events transpiring that have a negatively impact, or for which there is inadequate preparation, or which fall outside of design.

You ask me as an engineer. I will answer by example. Aircraft structures have to be designed (stressed) to withstand wind gusts of a well defined severity. The severity depends on the particular standard applied, which will depend on the aircraft category (eg military, civilian, and various sub categories).

Those prescribing the standard have to decide on the likelihood of various gust profiles being encountered under the intended operation. The standard could be based on a gust of such severity that an aircraft might only expect to encounter it once in one hundred years. But then that may mean aircraft have to be stressed to such a level, that they become so heavy and consume so much fuel, that flying becomes prohibitively expensive. If such a standard had been the historical norm, flying would be safer today, but then relatively few people could afford to fly and air freight would be much more costly. As such, it would be unlikely that such a standard would be of net benefit over the long term and in the aggregate (though it may have avoided a small number of disasters).

Unfortunately, whether in engineering or in finance, when it comes to risk, judgements need to be made, and there are no black & white answers.