2026-01-18 20:39:35

According to the banking industry's calculation logic, potential risk exposure could reach nearly $18 trillion. However, it is important to especially note that these figures are easily misinterpreted and exaggerated. Raw data often departs from the actual context and is interpreted differently by individuals with various perspectives, ultimately leading to distorted conclusions. Policy makers must exercise caution when citing such data, avoiding blind acceptance and instead deeply understanding the assumptions and limitations behind the numbers. Risk assessment in the financial system has never been black and white; it often requires analysis across multiple dimensions and assumptions to arrive at a more accurate picture.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DataOnlooker

· 01-18 21:09

180 trillion sounds scary, but how did this number come about... You need to look into the assumptions behind it. Data is like that—two versions from one mouth, depends on which side you're on. Playing the number game again, I've seen this routine many times. Policy makers really should take a good look at the logic... Otherwise, they'll just be led by the rhythm. Risk assessment isn't absolute; it's probably the sum of various conditions. That's the real issue—numbers can lie, it all depends on who's interpreting them. Is 180 trillion scary? First, ask how this was calculated.

View OriginalReply0

HashBrownies

· 01-18 21:09

180 trillion? Once this number comes out, big influencers will probably mess it up again, and the news headlines will be frightening. The data itself is correct; the key is who is using it, how they are using it, and how it is ultimately interpreted. That's why I never trust a single data source directly; cross-validation from multiple angles is necessary. People love to hear the worst-case scenario, but who looks at the underlying assumptions? It's all selective belief. Financial risk assessment is inherently very vague; it probably needs to be portrayed as "explosive" or "no problem" to make it to trending topics. Policy makers would be better off truly understanding this logic, but the problem is... they are often scared too.

View OriginalReply0

APY追逐者

· 01-18 21:08

180 trillion sounds scary, but how much of this number is inflated really depends on how it's calculated. Financial institutions present data this way, mainly to scare people; when it comes to verification, they change their tune. That's right, you can't just look at the surface numbers; you need to dig into the assumptions, or you'll get cut like a leek. This kind of "potential risk" statement is always on the tip of their tongue; the actual trigger probability is probably just a fraction of a percent, a trick to fool retail investors. The media loves to hype these big numbers, creating panic among people; how much actual impact this has is really hard to say. Every time, the data tells one story, but reality tells another; policymakers need to be more cautious.

View OriginalReply0

AirDropMissed

· 01-18 21:06

180 trillion sounds impressive, but this data game has been played many times before, and anyone can fill in the numbers according to their own logic. Numbers can be deceptive; it all depends on how you use them. It sounds like alarmist talk, but the actual situation is much more complex. That's why you can't just look at clickbait numbers; you need to dig into the underlying assumptions and conditions. Financial risk assessment has no absolute answer; it all depends on which model you trust.

View OriginalReply0

DegenDreamer

· 01-18 20:56

18 trillion? As soon as this number comes out, public opinion explodes, but we really need to dig into the assumptions behind it. 18 trillion sounds impressive, but how do banks calculate it? Under what assumptions? We need to ask clearly. Data can be deceptive; it all depends on who is interpreting it... Policy makers really should slow down. Don't be swayed by these big numbers; the truth lies in the details. The bank's calculation method itself is full of variables, and using it to scare people is the simplest approach.

View OriginalReply0

ChainWallflower

· 01-18 20:44

1.8 trillion sounds terrifying, but I've been tired of this data game for a long time... Numbers can lie; it all depends on who is telling the story. It's that same trick of "raw data being selectively used," I've heard it a hundred times. The only thing you can really trust is to dig into the underlying logic yourself... I won't say much else, but trusting half of the data in this industry is already good. Financial risk is inherently murky; they prefer to turn it into black-and-white opposition for better dissemination. This 1.8 trillion figure, oh, it's enough for people to talk about for a year. Those in the know understand that such risk exposure data should be viewed with a big discount. If policy makers really had it that simple, that would be great; the problem is they often need these "completely altered conclusions." Stacked assumptions can make any conclusion look plausible—who can't see through this routine?

View OriginalReply0