The phrase "allowance for risk" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to finance, insurance, or project management where one needs to account for potential uncertainties or dangers.
Example: "In our financial projections, we included an allowance for risk to ensure we are prepared for any unforeseen expenses."
Alternatives: "risk buffer" or "contingency for risk".
It has two broad uses, health impact modelling (understanding the effect of prevention, screening or treatment interventions on health) [ 2] and forecasting (estimating disease trends based on demographic change or predicted changes in risk factors, including making allowance for competing risk).
Thirdly, provide allowance for real risk transfer through an insurance credit to capital, encouraging more effective risk sharing through future product innovation.
The banks' risk models assumed that the spreads were relatively stable and predictable because they had been in the past.Third, the value-at-risk models implicitly assumed that banks could always get out of their positions: they made no allowance for liquidity risk.
Such beneficial role is not meaningfully modified by allowance for known risk factors for this neoplasm, such as BMI, tobacco, alcohol, and diabetes.
The latter was reduced twofold although subjects on higher therapeutic steps remained more likely to die even after allowance for other risk factors including best function.
Hurley et al. acknowledged that they had not fully used the available data – no allowance was made for risk varying with increases in cumulative exposure during follow-up, which would be relevant for later deaths; and no allowance was made for latency between exposure increment and increased risk of death from lung cancer.
Although a variety of allowances are paid for various kinds of tasks or functions (responsibility allowance, risk allowance, remoteness allowances), it remains difficult to survive on just this income.
Compared to earlier reports on the topic, our study was, however, much larger, allowing stratification by, and more accurate allowance for, other correlates of NHL risk.
This is clearly a considerable oversimplification since there is no allowance for the differences in risks between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (Ford et al, 1998; Malone et al, 2000; Antoniou et al, 2003) or for other lower risk genes.
