I would just point out that if RMS is still predicting that the period 2006-2010 will see 40% more losses, then my original critique remains valid. But at the same time your response suggests that RMS actually issues annual forecasts for 5 independent yearly time periods.

The following is too categorical, surely 2006 and 2007 provide information that allows something more to be said about the forecast skill than in early 2006: “Because of this no-one should expect to be able to verify or falsify the forecast in a short period of time.”

If I can try your patience yet again, can you report the median annual loss value for your historical catalog and the elicitation?

Thanks!