The tranquillity of a sunny afternoon can quickly transform into a scene of chaos when a wildfire erupts, engulfing homes and livelihoods in its path. Recent events, such as the devastating fires in Los Angeles, serve as stark reminders of the ever-present danger of tail risk. While cutting costs might seem prudent in the short term, history teaches us that neglecting tail risk can lead to disastrous and costly consequences. This article goes deeper into concept tail risk whilst exploring historical examples where cost-cutting measures led to complete wiping out of short-term cost savings – and amplifying costs when disasters unfolded, beyond anything imaginable. There are lessons here for the NHS and politicians who run the NHS. See: Managing tail risk in psychiatry – collaborative mapping (Nov 2023).
Table of Contents
- What is Tail Risk?
- The Los Angeles Fires (2024): A Case Study in Neglecting Tail Risk
- Historical Lessons in Tail Risk
- Apollo 13: A Near-Miss in Space (1970)
- Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans Disaster (2005)
- Global Financial Crisis (2007-2008)
- The HBOS Financial Disaster (2008): A Case of Reckless Growth
- The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster (2011)
- Boeing 737 MAX Crashes (2018-2019)
- Texas Power Grid Failure (2021)
- SolarWinds Cyber Attack (2020)
- Mitigating Tail Risk: A Balancing Act
- Conclusion
What is Tail Risk?
Imagine a bell curve, the familiar visual representation of a normal distribution. Most events cluster around the average, forming the bell’s peak. However, the curve extends on both sides, forming “tails” that represent less likely, more extreme events. Tail risk refers to the possibility of rare events with extreme outcomes occurring, typically in the context of investment returns or other financial metrics. These events are represented by the “tails” of a probability distribution curve, which illustrate outcomes that deviate significantly from the average (or mean).

While most financial models assume a normal distribution of events, where the majority cluster around the average, the real world often presents “fat tails.” This means that extreme events, though rare, are more likely than predicted by traditional models. The presence of “fat tails” in real-world probability distributions means that extreme events, while still rare, are more likely to occur than predicted by traditional models that assume a normal distribution.
Key points about tail risk:
- Low probability, high impact: Tail risk events have a low probability of occurring but can result in severe consequences.
- Asymmetric distribution: Tail risk is often associated with asymmetric distributions, where one tail (usually the left tail representing negative outcomes) is longer or “fatter” than the other.
- Black swan events: Tail risk can involve “black swan” events – rare, unpredictable occurrences that have a major impact and are often rationalised in hindsight.
- Value at Risk (VaR): Tail risk is sometimes quantified using Value at Risk (VaR), which estimates the potential loss for an investment over a specific time frame at a given confidence level.
- Risk management: Understanding and managing tail risk is of paramount importance for investors and risk managers to protect against potentially catastrophic losses.
In summary, tail risk represents the danger of low-probability, high-impact events that can lead to significant financial losses or other adverse outcomes. Recognising and managing tail risk is an important aspect of risk management and investment decision-making.
The Los Angeles Fires (2024): A Case Study in Neglecting Tail Risk
The recent Los Angeles fires offer a contemporary example of how cost-cutting measures can exacerbate disasters. While budget cuts to the Los Angeles Fire Department saved millions in the short term, they ultimately compromised the city’s ability to respond effectively to the fires.
Specifically, a $7 million reduction in overtime hours limited the department’s capacity to prepare for and respond to large-scale emergencies. This reduction also impacted their ability to conduct brush clearance inspections and residential inspections.
Adding to the complexity of the issue, academic research has explored the relationship between cost-cutting measures and tail risk. One study, published in the Review of Financial Studies, proposed a new measure of time-varying tail risk that is directly estimable from the cross-section of returns. Another study, published in the Journal of Alternative Investments, analysed four methods for controlling tail risk: long volatility, low volatility equity, trend following, and equity exposure management. A third study, also published in the Review of Financial Studies, examined the impact of tail risk on firm investment and equity risk premiums. These studies provide valuable insights into the dynamics of tail risk and the potential consequences of neglecting it.
The result of neglecting tail risk in Los Angeles? A preliminary estimate by AccuWeather put the total damage and economic loss from the Los Angeles fires at between $135 billion and $150 billion. This makes it potentially the costliest wildfire in California’s history, surpassing even the devastating Camp Fire in 2018.
Historical Lessons in Tail Risk
The Los Angeles fires are not an isolated incident. History is replete with examples where cost-cutting measures, while seemingly beneficial in the short term, ultimately led to far greater costs when disaster struck. These examples demonstrate a recurring pattern: cost-cutting measures, while seemingly prudent in the short term, often create hidden vulnerabilities that increase the likelihood and severity of tail risk events.
Apollo 13: A Near-Miss in Space (1970)
The Apollo 13 mission in 1970 is an example of how insufficient planning for low-probability, high-impact events can lead to near-catastrophic consequences. While the mission ultimately ended with the safe return of the crew, it came at a great cost and risk.
Background: Apollo 13 was intended to be the third crewed mission to land on the Moon. During the mission, an oxygen tank in the service module failed, causing a loss of power and oxygen and forcing the crew to abandon the Moon landing.
Inadequate Risk Management: The oxygen tank failure was traced back to damage that occurred during pre-flight testing, which should have been caught by more robust quality control processes. NASA had not sufficiently prepared for the possibility of such a severe malfunction occurring during a mission, revealing gaps in contingency planning.
Consequences and Costs: The crew faced a life-threatening situation, forced to use the lunar module as a “lifeboat” to conserve power and oxygen. The mission had to be aborted, representing a major setback for NASA’s Moon program and a loss of the investment made in the mission. Significant resources had to be diverted to mount a rescue effort and bring the crew home safely.
Lessons Learned
- The Apollo 13 experience led to a re-evaluation of NASA’s risk management practices and a renewed emphasis on safety and contingency planning.
- It highlighted the importance of investing in robust systems, quality control, and training to handle unexpected failures.
- The “failure is not an option” mindset that emerged from the crisis became a rallying cry for the importance of preparedness and resilience.
In conclusion, the Apollo 13 mission serves as a stark reminder that even in the face of daunting odds, investing in risk management and preparedness is essential. While the mission’s failure came at a high cost, the lessons learned from it ultimately strengthened NASA’s ability to manage future crises and laid the groundwork for later successes. Organisations today can draw important insights from this example about the value of proactive risk management in navigating uncertain and high-stakes environments.
Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans Disaster (2005)
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, causing widespread devastation and claiming over 1,800 lives. While the hurricane’s intensity played a significant role, cost-cutting measures in flood control infrastructure amplified the disaster’s impact. A report by the American Society of Civil Engineers highlighted failures in the design and construction of the city’s levees. These failures, coupled with inadequate maintenance, resulted in catastrophic flooding that submerged 80% of New Orleans.
One critical factor was the use of “highly erodible sand and lightweight shell sand fill” in some levee sections. This decision, likely made to reduce costs, compromised the levees’ structural integrity and contributed to their failure.
The economic impact of Hurricane Katrina was staggering, with estimates ranging from $125 billion to $200 billion. This included not only property damage but also the long-term costs of displacement, lost jobs, and disruption to essential industries. Moreover, the disaster highlighted the concept of “poverty traps,” where poor regions affected by repeated natural disasters and lacking the capacity for reconstruction may struggle to maintain essential infrastructure, hindering economic development and perpetuating poverty.
Global Financial Crisis (2007-2008)
Many financial institutions underestimated the risk of a widespread downturn in the housing market, leading to excessive risk-taking and the proliferation of complex financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities. When the housing bubble burst, it triggered a global financial meltdown. The crisis led to hundreds of billions in losses, the collapse of major institutions like Lehman Brothers, and a severe global recession. In effect greed led to a neglect of tail-risk management.
The HBOS Financial Disaster (2008): A Case of Reckless Growth
The collapse of HBOS in 2008 serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of cost-cutting in the financial sector. While not a natural disaster like the previous examples, the HBOS case demonstrates how a focus on short-term profits and reckless growth can create hidden risks that ultimately lead to financial ruin.
The late Paul Moore, former Head of Group Regulatory Risk at HBOS, had warned the bank’s board about its risky sales strategies and the potential for mis-selling products to customers. Specifically, he raised concerns about the mis-selling of products such as corporate bond funds and credit insurance to customers who neither understood the risks involved nor needed the products. However, his warnings were ignored, and he was ultimately dismissed from his position. This act of whistleblowing highlights the challenges individuals can face when trying to raise awareness of potential risks within an organisation.
HBOS pursued rapid and uncontrolled growth of its balance sheet, prioritising market share and short-term profitability over prudent risk management. This led to an over-exposure to commercial real estate at the peak of the economic cycle, lower quality lending, and increased leverage. The bank’s aggressive sales culture contributed to this reckless growth, as it incentivised employees to prioritise sales volume over risk assessment and customer needs.
When the financial crisis hit, HBOS’s underlying weaknesses were exposed, and the bank was forced into a merger with Lloyds TSB, requiring a multi-billion-pound bailout from the UK government. The bank’s failure was ultimately attributed to a combination of factors, including its flawed strategy, inadequate risk controls, and the liquidity risk stemming from its reliance on wholesale funding. Greed again led to neglect of tail risk.
The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster (2011)
The 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami, provides another example of how cost-cutting can have devastating consequences. While the natural disaster was undeniably the initial cause, investigations revealed that cost-cutting measures at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant contributed to the severity of the accident.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was not adequately prepared for the risk of a powerful tsunami, despite warnings. When a magnitude 9.0 earthquake triggered a massive tsunami, it overwhelmed the plant’s defenses and caused a meltdown. The disaster led to the release of radioactive material, the evacuation of over 100,000 residents, and estimated costs of $200 billion.
One contributing factor was the decision to place the backup generators in a location vulnerable to flooding. This decision, likely driven by cost considerations, proved fatal when the tsunami struck, disabling the generators and leading to a loss of coolant in the reactors. The inadequate height of the seawall also played a role, as it failed to protect the plant from the tsunami’s surge.
Boeing 737 MAX Crashes (2018-2019)
Boeing underestimated the risks associated with the design changes made to the 737 MAX, particularly the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). This led to two tragic crashes that claimed 346 lives. The consequences included a global grounding of the 737 MAX, severe reputational damage to Boeing, and estimated costs exceeding $20 billion.
The Boeing 737 MAX crashes have been linked to a culture of cost-cutting and pressure to prioritise short-term financial goals over safety concerns. While the immediate cause of the crashes was a faulty flight control system (MCAS), investigations revealed deeper issues related to inadequate investment in risk management.
Key Points:
- Rushed Development: Boeing was under intense pressure to quickly develop and launch the 737 MAX to compete with Airbus’s A320neo. This led to shortcuts in design, testing, and certification processes, including a failure to adequately assess and mitigate the risks associated with the MCAS system.
- Lack of Pilot Training: To minimise costs and speed up adoption of the 737 MAX, Boeing downplayed the differences between the new aircraft and previous 737 models. This led to a decision not to require simulator training for pilots transitioning to the MAX, which could have helped them better understand and respond to MCAS malfunctions.
- Inadequate Regulatory Oversight: The FAA, facing budget constraints and political pressure, delegated much of the certification process for the 737 MAX to Boeing itself. This created a conflict of interest and weakened the oversight needed to catch and correct safety issues.
- Prioritising Cost over Safety: Internal Boeing documents and whistleblower testimony suggest that management prioritised cost savings and schedule over safety concerns raised by engineers. This penny-pinching mindset led to a failure to invest in necessary safety features and risk mitigation measures.
Conclusion: The Boeing 737 MAX crashes serve as a tragic example of how a focus on short-term cost savings can lead to devastating consequences. By prioritising financial goals over safety and failing to invest adequately in risk management, Boeing set the stage for a crisis that cost hundreds of lives and billions of dollars in losses. This case underscores the importance of adopting a protective investment mindset, where spending on safety and risk mitigation is viewed as essential for long-term success rather than an unnecessary expense. Had Boeing and regulators prioritised safety over cost-cutting, these crashes might have been prevented. The lessons from this tragedy should serve as a wake-up call for organisations across industries to reassess their risk management practices and ensure that safety always comes first.
Texas Power Grid Failure (2021)
Texas power utilities and regulators failed to adequately prepare for the risk of a severe winter storm, despite warnings about the vulnerability of the state’s independent power grid. When Winter Storm Uri hit in February 2021, it led to widespread power outages, over 200 deaths, and estimated costs of $195 billion. The failure highlighted the dangers of neglecting to invest in infrastructure resilience.
SolarWinds Cyber Attack (2020)
SolarWinds, a major IT management software provider, failed to properly manage the risk of a sophisticated cyber attack. Hackers believed to be linked to Russia managed to infiltrate SolarWinds’ software development process and insert malicious code into an update. This led to a massive supply chain attack affecting thousands of organisations, including several U.S. government agencies. The full costs are still being tallied but are estimated to be in the billions.
Mitigating Tail Risk: A Balancing Act
The examples above demonstrate the importance of managing tail risk. However, this does not mean that cost-cutting should be abandoned altogether. Instead, organisations need to find a balance between saving money and mitigating the risk of catastrophic events in the future.
Risk Management Strategies
Several risk management strategies can help organisations mitigate tail risk:
- Diversification: Spreading investments across different asset classes and sectors can help reduce the impact of a tail event in any one area.
- Active Volatility Management: Adjusting portfolio risk in response to market volatility can help mitigate tail risk without relying solely on expensive insurance strategies.
- Scenario Analysis: Simulating extreme market conditions can help identify vulnerabilities and assess the potential impact of tail events.
- Stress Testing: Evaluating how a portfolio performs under various stress scenarios can help identify weaknesses and inform risk mitigation strategies.
- Early Warning Systems: Implementing systems to monitor for potential tail events can provide valuable time to prepare and respond.
- Dual Momentum Fixed Income (DMFI): This strategy involves investing in a diversified portfolio of fixed income assets and actively managing the allocation based on momentum signals. This approach can help reduce tail risk and enhance returns in fixed income investments.
- Risk-Reducing Portfolios: As an alternative to tail-hedging strategies, risk-reducing portfolios aim to reduce overall portfolio risk by diversifying across asset classes with low correlations. This approach can be simpler and more cost-effective than complex hedging strategies.
Communicating Tail Risk
Effectively communicating the importance of tail risk to decision-makers is of extreme importance. This involves:
- Framing the Risk: Explaining tail risk in clear and concise terms, emphasising the potential consequences of neglecting it.
- Providing Real-World Examples: Using historical examples and case studies to illustrate the impact of tail events.
- Quantifying the Impact: Assessing the potential financial and operational consequences of tail events.
- Developing a Crisis Plan: Having a clear plan in place to respond to tail events can help minimise damage and ensure business continuity.
Conclusion
Tail risk is an inherent part of any complex system, whether it is a city facing wildfires, a nuclear power plant vulnerable to natural disasters, a financial institution exposed to market shocks, or even a space mission pushing the boundaries of human exploration. While cost-cutting is often necessary, neglecting tail risk can have disastrous and costly consequences, jeopardising not only financial stability but also human lives and the environment.
The examples explored in this article underscore a critical lesson: short-term cost-cutting measures, while often presented as prudent financial decisions, can create hidden vulnerabilities that amplify the impact of tail risk events. Whether it is neglecting fire prevention measures, compromising the integrity of critical infrastructure, or prioritising reckless growth over prudent risk management, the consequences of ignoring tail risk can be devastating and far-reaching. The examples underscore the severe consequences that can result from failing to invest in managing low-probability, high-impact risks. In each case, decision-makers either underestimated the risks or failed to allocate sufficient resources to mitigate them, leading to immense financial, reputational, and human costs. As individuals and organisations move forward, it is imperative that organisations learn from these painful lessons and adopt a more proactive, strategic approach to risk management.
Furthermore, the ethical implications of prioritising short-term gains over long-term safety and sustainability has to be recognised. Decision-makers have a responsibility to consider the potential consequences of their actions, even if those consequences are unlikely. By integrating ethical considerations into risk management practices, organisations can ensure that their decisions not only protect their financial interests but also contribute to the well-being of society and the environment.
Executive Summary:
A review of historical examples reveals a consistent pattern of organisations underestimating and under-investing in managing low-probability, high-impact risks, often referred to as tail risks. This mindset, driven by a misguided focus on short-term cost savings, has repeatedly led to catastrophic consequences that far outweigh any initial savings. From the Apollo 13 mission to the recent Texas power grid failure, the costs of being unprepared for tail risks have been staggering, often reaching hundreds of billions of dollars and causing severe human and reputational damage.
Key Findings:
- False Economy: Organisations that view risk management spending as a cost to be minimised fail to recognise its value as an investment in resilience. Attempting to “save” money by underinvesting in risk mitigation consistently backfires when tail risks materialise.
- Magnitude of Consequences: While tail risk events may be low probability, their impacts can be severe enough to threaten the very existence of an organisation. The costs of recovering from a catastrophic failure dwarf any short-term savings from underinvesting in preparedness.
- Lessons Not Learned: Despite repeated, high-profile examples of the dangers of neglecting tail risks, many organisations continue to make the same mistake. Each new crisis is met with surprise and a scramble to respond, rather than proactive planning and investment.
- Importance of Resilience: Organisations that prioritisee resilience over short-term cost cutting are better positioned to weather crises and emerge stronger. Investing in risk management capabilities, redundancies, and contingency plans pays off in the long run.
Recommendations:
- Shift Mindset: Organisations must recognise risk management as an essential investment rather than a discretionary cost. Shifting to a protective investment mindset is not to be delayed among organisations seeking to build long-term resilience in the face of an uncertain future. By recognising that the cost of risk management is an investment in preventing potentially catastrophic losses, organisations can make more informed decisions about allocating resources. While this mindset shift may require difficult trade-offs in the short term, it is essential for ensuring the ongoing viability and success of the organisation in the long run. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure – and in the case of low-probability, high-impact risks, that prevention can be the difference between weathering the storm and suffering devastating consequences. Leadership should set the tone by prioritising resilience and preparedness.
- Robust Risk Assessment: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify and quantify tail risks, including low-probability, high-impact scenarios. Use techniques like scenario planning and stress testing.
- Adequate Resource Allocation: Based on risk assessments, allocate sufficient financial and human resources to implement effective risk mitigation strategies. Avoid the temptation to cut corners.
- Embed Risk Management: Integrate risk management into all aspects of decision-making and operations. Foster a culture of risk awareness and continuous improvement.
- Learn from Experience: Study past failures, both within the organisation and in the broader industry or society. Internalise the lessons and use them to inform future risk management efforts.
The historical record is clear: attempting to save money by underinvesting in tail risk management is a false economy that can lead to devastating consequences. As we navigate an increasingly complex and interconnected world, it is more important than ever for organisations to prioritisee resilience over short-term cost savings. By shifting mindsets, conducting robust risk assessments, allocating adequate resources, embedding risk management, and learning from experience, organisations can position themselves to weather even the most severe crises. The alternative – being caught unprepared when disaster strikes – is simply too costly to contemplate.
By understanding the concept of tail risk, learning from historical examples, and implementing effective risk management strategies, organisations can strike a balance between short-term savings and long-term resilience. This involves not only adopting appropriate risk mitigation techniques but also fostering a culture of risk awareness and open communication, where potential risks are identified and addressed proactively.
Looking ahead, it is essential to consider the impact of converging technologies on long-term forecasting and risk management. As technology continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, new risks and vulnerabilities will emerge, requiring organisations to adapt their risk management strategies accordingly.
In our own lives, we can apply the principles of tail risk management by considering the potential consequences of our decisions, even those that seem insignificant. This might involve investing in insurance, diversifying our savings, or simply taking precautions to avoid potential hazards. By acknowledging the possibility of unlikely but impactful events, we can make more informed decisions that promote long-term well-being and resilience.
Supplemental Reading List
- Understanding Tail Risk and the Odds of Portfolio Losses – Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tailrisk.asp
- Yes, Los Angeles cut $17.6 million from the fire department’s budget – WCNC, https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/verify/money-verify/yes-los-angeles-cut-176-million-from-the-lafd-fire-departments-budget/536-4b902910-08f5-42d5-bc5e-bdfad1cb0560
- A month before fires, L.A. fire chief warned budget cuts were hampering emergency response – CBS News, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-wildfires-los-angeles-fire-chief-budget-cuts/
- Tail Risk and Asset Prices – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279957227_Tail_Risk_and_Asset_Prices
- A Comparison of Tail Risk Protection Strategies in the U.S. Market – CAIA Association, https://caia.org/sites/default/files/2013-aiar-q1-comparison.pdf
- Tail Risk and Asset Prices Bryan Kelly Hao Jiang Working Paper 19375, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19375/w19375.pdf
- L.A. wildfires have caused more than $135 billion of economic loss – and counting | Morningstar, https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20250109310/la-wildfires-have-caused-more-than-135-billion-of-economic-loss-and-counting
- The LA county wildfires could be the costliest in US history, early estimates say – AP News, https://apnews.com/article/california-wildfires-natural-disasters-losses-insurance-recovery-d2f24e44d75503118643151eaee947fb
- Hurricane Katrina | George W. Bush Library, https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/hurricane-katrina
- Cost-cutting and poor planning behind New Orleans levee failures – WSWS, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/05/katr-m23.html
- Case Study: New Orleans and Katrina | Coastal Processes, Hazards, and Society, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1665
- Louisiana Hurricanes: Impact on Economy – Research Guides, https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/Hurricanes/KatrinaEconomy
- (PDF) A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Orleans Flood Protection System – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5085681_A_Cost-Benefit_Analysis_of_the_New_Orleans_Flood_Protection_System
- Fukushima Daiichi Accident – World Nuclear Association, https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident
- Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster, https://psr.org/resources/costs-and-consequences-of-the-fukushima-daiichi-disaster/
- 50 Years Ago: Apollo 13 Review Board Report – NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/history/50-years-ago-apollo-13-review-board-report/
- Paul Moore (banking manager) – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Moore_(banking_manager)
- Whistleblower to present new HBOS evidence – The Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/whistleblower-to-present-new-hbos-evidence-1634649.html
- The failure of HBOS plc (HBOS) – Bank of England, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/publication/hbos-summary-and-recommendations.pdf
- Tail Risk Mitigation – Optimal Momentum, https://www.optimalmomentum.com/tail-risk-mitigation/
- Chasing Your Own Tail (Risk) – AQR Capital Management, https://www.aqr.com/-/media/AQR/Documents/Insights/White-Papers/AQR-Chasing-Your-Own-Tail-Risk.pdf
- Confront Tail Risk Head-On to Boost Operational Resilience – Riskonnect, https://riskonnect.com/enterprise-risk-management/tail-risk-operational-resilience/
- What are Tail Risks? | APMEX, https://learn.apmex.com/investing-guide/tail-risks/
- How to Reduce Tail Spend and Increase Savings – CloudEagle.ai, https://www.cloudeagle.ai/blogs/how-to-reduce-tail-spend
- Did hedging tail risk pay off? – MSCI, https://www.msci.com/www/blog-posts/did-hedging-tail-risk-pay-off-/01784814215
- An Introduction to Tail Risk Parity – AllianceBernstein, https://alliancebernstein.com/abcom/segment_homepages/defined_benefit/3_emea/content/pdf/introduction-to-tail-risk-parity.pdf
- communicating tail-risk credibly – OSF, https://osf.io/qwxub/download/?format=pdf
- The Power of Tail Risk – The Hedge Fund Journal, https://thehedgefundjournal.com/the-power-of-tail-risk/
- Strategies to Mitigate Tail Risk – – Alpha Architect, https://alphaarchitect.com/2022/05/strategies-to-mitigate-tail-risk/
- Bold Innovation: Lessons Learned from Apollo 11 & 13, https://www.su.org/resources/future-journeys-lessons-in-bold-innovation-from-apollo-13