Have the planning guys really grasped how to handle risk? Granted there are differences in the ontologies of the technical and the managerial on this subject, yet even within the technical side those who think that they can minimize risk to almost nil ought to re-examine the basis of their world view (hint: quasi-empirical issues).
Too, if reducing risk (technical, not financial) is accomplished by pushing out effort, then things ought to get suspect.
One hears a lot about how many modern views are better analytically (we heard the concept, parametrically consistent, referenced yesterday), yet, things-in-themselves do not necessarily agree with our confidence; this ought to give us pause on several sides. We'll be looking further at issues involved with technical risk.
Now, in terms of financial risk, one can only hope that markings stay away from the regions of model (partly myth) and myth. How? We need to look at that further.
08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).
01/17/2013 -- Grounding due to fire.
01/31/ 2011 -- Referenced from 4th January. As well, remember how 'model and myth' was decided by Congress, despite protestations by the bean counters? Note how their decision has allowed expansions that may be bordering on bubble.