It's possible that the average loss by "consumers" exceeds even seemingly massive losses when an exchange is hacked. If you're not careful enough, your funds may actually be safer (statistically) with a third party.
A bit like a major aircraft accident. It's horrible to hear about 300 people dying, yet that number is small when compared to say, traffic accidents. Even though the former is more sensational, you have far more chance of being affected by the latter.
The main problem with such reasoning is that you forget to mention that in air crashes, unlike traffic accidents, you have only an infinitesimal chance of surviving it. In other words, the horrible thing is not about 300 people dying, it is about ALL of them dying...
I'm referring specifically to fatalities only. The number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents over say a year would far exceed the toll from aircraft accidents.
Anyway, a somewhat moot point if the third party you trust with your funds happens to be the one that gets hacked.
Wasn't it Fyrstikken that claimed a cold wallet was facilitated by spreading funds around the hot wallets of multiple exchanges? An interesting (re)definition.