Boston-based AIR releases terrorism risk model
AIR Worldwide, a Boston-based catastrophe and weather risk modelling company, today released what it claims is the first commercially available terrorism risk model. The model estimates the financial impact of insured property and workers' compensation losses from potential future terrorist attacks in the US.
Insurers and reinurers with a large property portfolio are likely to pay $200,000 for the model, whereas smaller companies will pay up to $50,000. A spokesman added that AIR is also examining non-conventional weapons damage including chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear. Models incorporating these threats should be available by early 2003. AIR is also working on an international roll-out of the services.
AIR employed a team of counter-terrorism specialists with experience at government agencies such as the FBI, CIA and the Department of Defense to develop the model.
"The evaluation process that AIR has undertaken regarding terrorism is extremely important," said Buck Revell, a former associate deputy director at the FBI responsible for criminal investigations, and one of the advisers for AIR’s model. "The first and most important element of being prepared is to understand the true nature of the risk and the consequences of not being prepared for a terrorist attack."
The frequency and severity of attacks were estimated using the Delphi Method, developed by the Rand Corporation at the start of the Cold War. The Delphi Method has been used to generate forecasts in many areas including inter-continental warfare and technological change.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Risk management
Review of 2025: It’s the end of the world, and it feels fine
Markets proved resilient as Trump redefined US policies – but questions are piling up about 2026 and beyond
BofA urges horizontal CCP fix after CME outage, others demur
Analysts say clearing meltdown bolsters case for futures-for-futures exchange with FMX
One in five banks targets a 30-day liquidity survival horizon
ALM Benchmarking research finds wide divergence in liquidity risk appetites, even among large lenders
Bank ALM tech still dominated by manual workflows
Batch processing and Excel files still pervade, with only one in four lenders planning tech upgrades
Many banks ignore spectre of SVB in liquidity stress tests
In ALM Benchmarking exercise, majority of banks have no internal tests focusing on stress horizons of less than 30 days
Quant Finance Master’s Guide 2026
Risk.net’s guide to the world’s leading quant master’s programmes, with the top 25 schools ranked
ALM Benchmarking: explore the data
View interactive charts from Risk.net’s 46-bank study, covering ALM governance, balance-sheet strategy, stress-testing, technology and regulation
Staff, survival days, models – where banks split on ALM
Liquidity and rate risks are as old as banking; but the 46 banks in our benchmarking study have different ways to manage them