|
Posted by Elle on August 13, 2007, 5:33 pm
E
>> That disclosure makes him more credible, not less, in my
>> mind, at least at first blush. For reputable
>> publications,
>> such disclosures are customary, in the interests of
>> optimizing information dispersal to the public.
>
> That's definitely one way of looking at it. Others will
> argue that I
> sell them and I am therefore motivated to make people buy
> them even if
> it's not in their best interest. I often feel it's
> lose-lose.
Just my opinion, but I think you need to re-think this.
Deception or obfuscation is never well-received. E.g. people
finding out /after the fact/ that your line of work involves
the sale, to some extent of VAs will go over far less better
than simply being honest. Honesty sells. It's a win-win,
unless one's goals are short-term deception and a short-term
win, I guess.
Fact is salespeople of products often do have useful
information that the layperson does not have. They want to
sell it, they need to know it, hopefully cold. So, sure, the
salesperson may be biased out of interest to just make a
sale. S/he may have important info, too, to share with a
potential buyer. The best salespeople, in any line of work I
know, realize that word of mouth goes far, and that if their
customers are always happy with what they buy, then they
will get more customers. The first way to keep them happy is
to ensure they know, as well as possible (granted that can
be nebulous) before purchase, what they are getting.
> Back in 2006 you accused me of "generating a buzz"
Does this sound bite really do justice to our exchange? I
doubt it. I expect more likely I queried you, and you took
the query as an accusation. Because in fact I don't have all
the facts about what people do here, so it's important to
keep an open mind about the truth, rather than just accuse.
(Of course, if one reads queries as accusations, that's the
reader's fault. Just answer the query and move on, as you
did at the top here.) Email in private, if you wish.
|
|
Posted by kastnna on August 13, 2007, 6:24 pm
>
> Just my opinion, but I think you need to re-think this.
> Deception or obfuscation is never well-received. E.g. people
> finding out /after the fact/ that your line of work involves
> the sale, to some extent of VAs will go over far less better
> than simply being honest. Honesty sells. It's a win-win,
> unless one's goals are short-term deception and a short-term
> win, I guess.
>
All I told him was to make sure he covered all his bases before
jumping in (as a matter of fact I said it three times). I never said
buy it, I never said don't buy it.
He could have asked "should I have my prostate removed" and I still
would have said, "make sure you learn all the pros and cons first".
Being a doctor doesn't make that advice any more or less applicable.
There is a difference between deception and omission of non-relevant
facts (hint: the former implies malice and that's not a light
accusation).
|
|
Posted by Will Trice on August 13, 2007, 7:56 pm
Elle wrote:
>>Back in 2006 you accused me of "generating a buzz"
>
>
> I expect more likely I queried you, and you took
> the query as an accusation.
I actually took your words back then as an accusation (unfounded at
that): "Re selling stuff: It's about generating buzz (and IMO not a
few urban legends within that buzz) as much as plugging
one's specific service."
-Will
|
|
Posted by Elle on August 14, 2007, 6:39 am
> Elle wrote:
> I actually took your words back then as an accusation
> (unfounded at that): "Re selling stuff: It's about
> generating buzz (and IMO not a
> few urban legends within that buzz) as much as plugging
> one's specific service."
It's true, Will, human nature is such that people do not
like to be reminded in any form of their ethical
responsibilities.
And yet, in reputable publications, it's such common
practice to disclose possible conflicts of interest that one
would think others would contemplate and figure out why
disclosures are done, and start the practice themselves.
|
|
Posted by Mark Freeland on August 14, 2007, 1:15 pm
> And yet, in reputable publications, it's such common practice to disclose
> possible conflicts of interest that one would think others would
> contemplate and figure out why disclosures are done,
It certainly IS worth contemplating why disclosures are done, when they are
substantially ineffective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/business/yourmoney/28instincts.html?ei=5088&en=d9bc3556744bd87f&ex=1343275200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
(NYTimes article, July 28, 2007, entitled "Disclosing Bias Doesn't Cancel
Its Effects", reporting that when advisers disclosed that "they would
benefit if [] clients heeded [their] advice ... 'the advisers ended up
making even more money than [had they not disclosed the conflict]'" - thus
showing that customers throw more money at advisers who are known to have
conflicts of interest)
>From the abstract of the paper discussed in the article: "As a result,
disclosure may fail to solve the problems created by conflicts of interest
and may sometimes even make matters worse."
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/journal/issues/v34n1/340105/340105.web.pdf?erFrom=-1512934722155143181Guest
Cain, Lowenstein, and Moore, "The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of
Disclosing Conflicts of Interest"
Further in the paper: "The Bottom Line ... the basic pattern of results ...
is consistent: estimators [clients] earned less money when conflicts of
interest were disclosed than when they were not, and advisors made more
money with disclosure than without disclosure."
So it appears that it is in the advisors' self-interest to make disclosures
to take advantage of people's misplaced trust of advisers who disclose.
(See, e.g. last paragraph, p. 5 of paper.)
Is this really what you are advocating?
Mark Freeland
BnetOnewsX@sbcglobal.net
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Life insurance in company pension | January 17, 2007, 9:53 am |
| Variable Annuities | October 12, 2006, 5:01 am |
| Variable annuities not so bad? | October 22, 2008, 8:14 pm |
| Variable Annutieis: The truth? | December 5, 2006, 5:00 am |
| Variable Annuity Questions | March 5, 2007, 4:51 pm |
| Guarantees In Variable Annuities? | July 9, 2008, 4:06 pm |
| variable annuity inside 401k | December 19, 2006, 5:31 am |
| variable annuities in an IRA (tiaa-cref) | January 3, 2007, 12:13 pm |
| Roth 401K versus variable annuity | January 11, 2007, 9:24 am |
| Loans Company | February 22, 2007, 12:10 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap