Like, presumably the ideal scenario is that a risk evaluator estimates the risk in an objective way, and then the company takes (hopefully predefined) actions based on that estimate. The outcome of this interaction should not depend on social cues like how loyal they seem, or how personally costly it was for them to communicate that information. To the extent it does, I think this is evidence that the risk management framework is broken.
I agree with all of this, but don’t expect to live in an ideal world with a non-broken risk management framework and we’re making decisions on that margin.
I also think predefined actions is somewhat tricky to get right even in a pretty ideal set up, but I agree you can get reasonably close.
Note that I don’t necessary endorse the arguments I quoted (this is just the strongest objection I’m aware of) and as a bottom line, I think you should pay risk evaluators in cash.
I agree with all of this, but don’t expect to live in an ideal world with a non-broken risk management framework and we’re making decisions on that margin.
I also think predefined actions is somewhat tricky to get right even in a pretty ideal set up, but I agree you can get reasonably close.
Note that I don’t necessary endorse the arguments I quoted (this is just the strongest objection I’m aware of) and as a bottom line, I think you should pay risk evaluators in cash.