Why I would welcome the rebuttal? Because it would increase the sum total of human knowledge, which in my book is a Good Thing.
Perhaps Risk management seeks to eliminate and/or avoid risks, but then there is more to risk and investing than Risk management. In investing we generally seek to maximize return and to minimize risk. A useful metric is the Sharpe Ratio. A high SR means a return that is relatively high compared to the risk involved. However, if an investment with a high SR has a return that is too low, and you are willing to take more risk, you could use leverage. Thereby you raise both risk and return, and the SR remains the same. Or, when the risk is too high, and a return a bit lower is still appealing, you do the opposite: invest only a part with the high risk, and the rest risk free (as far as possible), lowering both risk and return = same Sharpe Ratio.
For your information: the Sharpe ratio cannot be calculated for a totally and completely risk free investment, because it would approach infinity. Instead, economists hold that a completely risk free investment does not exist. That is difficult to prove, but easy to disprove: just show us one. Preferably with high return! (And please show it first to me by private mail, because as soon as it is known, people will start bidding it up to low return.)
Regards,
Karel
