A Retraction

The epically fragile Dave Budge apparently intends to sue me (pro se, fools for clients and all that) over something I wrote yesterday morning.  It appears he is concerned that I have defamed his character by writing that he was fresh off a "stint of fleecing old people", and has *demanded* a retraction.  I personally would be interested in seeing precisely what harm my website could do to his reputation, considering that not one of his clients would likely ever have read it, and his rather consistent claims that I am a liar, a douchbag and an asshole.  No, Dave is having one of his legendary tantrums of temper.  But, since I'm rather amiable about most things, I have redacted the sentence to more accurately describe my intent.  A full deletion at this point would be useless since Dave himself copied the sentence to other websites over which I have no control.  He spread the word himself, so to speak.  Whether or not this retraction will stop Dave from reaching for his Junior Legal Eagle DIY Home Lawyer Kit and Will Maker is entirely up to him.

Obviously Dave thinks that I meant something legal or criminal with the use of the word "fleece".  Nothing could be further from the truth.  You see, he is correct that I would have no way of knowing whether or not he engages in criminal or professionally unethical behavior.  I cannot factually say "Dave Budge fleeces people" with the word carrying a legal or criminal connotation, just as I have not the facts at hand to say that "Dave Budge does not fleece people"  with the word carrying a legal or criminal connotation.   Certainly I would never try to accuse him in such a  manner, where "fleece " means that he engages in criminal or professionally unethical activity.  It's not like the guy sells snake oil, or vitamins or other such homeopathic folderol.  He simply provides a service, an unsavory one in my opinion, as I expressed yesterday.

Dave and I have 'discussed' that before, so he knows my opinion on his line of work.  I think "asset management" is a rather unnecessary way for folks to profit by playing with other's money.  It's little more than an unseemly form of sales pitch, in my opinion.  Perfectly legal, of course, but I view it as a low form of labor hustle for profit.  Dave is aware of the lack of respect I have for his profession, and the dearth of quality I find in him.  Rather surprising then that he should get hung up on a word that I  simply couldn't have meant in the manner he chose to view it.  No worries.  Words are easy enough to retract, and so I have done.

It's doubtful that Dave, the good libertarian, will lose his new found love of the frivolous lawsuit without an apology.  I'm game for that, certainly.

Dave Budge, I am honestly and sincerely sorry that you felt threatened by a word.  I deeply apologize that I did not make my thinking clear to you.  I don't think you're a criminal or professionally unethical; after all, we have established that I wouldn't know even if you were.  Certainly, no one who profits from manipulating the money of others should be subjected to the accusation of 'fleecing' taken in the dim light you cast upon it.  So, I regret using the word 'fleecing' as regards whatever it is you undertake, Dave Budge, and I retract it in total.  I also apologize to all the people that Dave will whine about this issue to.  You have no idea the embarrassment I feel on your behalf and the sympathy I have for your plight.  Please accept my deeply held belief that Dave is as professional as he presents to you, and not nearly the self-loathing wanker that he presents online.  I hope that you accept my apology, Dave.  And please accept my solemn promise that I will never refer to your professional activities as 'fleecing' again.  In the future, I will be much more direct in telling you what a complete piece of hypocritical human filth I think you are.  But your "reputation" is certainly safe from any attack launched by me.

Love and peace,

Wulfgar

(Oh, and Dave, working for ASMSU *is* working for the University, even "per se" even.  Do learn to Google sometime.  Best wishes.)

Comments

[Mark T]

The profession of financial adviser, like that of insurance salesman (excuse me: estate planner)is basically a confidence game. A financial adviser has got to convince his clients that they are doing better with than without his advice. Since the world of stocks and bonds is unpredictable, people have to be convinced that when their portfolios take a nose dive, it's a smaller one than that they would have taken without the advice. And when the market goes up, and all advisers are smart, he has got to convince his clients that they are doing better than they would have done without the advice. He's selling himself. That is the product.

Dave told me he placed one of his clients in a long term annuity - those are low-return high commission vehicles. I look at them as instruments for fleecing people, but who knows - maybe in Dave's case, he's not.

[Dave Budge]

Mark, I seem to recall it was your financial adviser who told you that annuities are bad investments. Are you being scammed or were you being dishonest with me?

Secondly, it's risky business to make assumptions about financial products out of context. I have never, not once, sold a client an annuity de novo. For the handful I have sold (maybe 6 in my entire career), they have all been to make the best of a bad investment in life insurance (from a previous salesperson) using a 1035 exchange. Seems to me you shouldn't think in such absolutes - and maybe you should fire your financial adviser.

[Mark T]

I depend on our financial adviser about as much as our insurance salesman. He was the one who told me that his clientèle suffer less in down markets - they don't lost as badly as they woudl have without him. It's the perfect deer whistle - the product we have to take on faith.

Anyway, shit - I was hoping I could be sued too. I don't want to be left out. I know my ass from my elbow, know what an annuity is, and know that financial advisers push them becuase they carry a high sales commission. They have an odd way of making what is best for them into what is best for the client. Life insurance people play the same game.

In my case we were dealing with an existing annuity that was sold to a person now deceased, and all we could do was sigh and admit that the guy got away with it.

Life insurance is quite a scam, no? Or are you allowed to say that without libeling someone?

[Cece]

*fleeces Wulgar*

[Dave Budge]

Mark, as I said above, it depends. I have used variable life only twice in my career as part of large and complicated estate plans designed in consort with an estate tax lawyer. For the most part I have found life insurance sales people to usually be uneducated and only sales oriented. That's also true for many financial advisers (and wire house stock brokers are just as bad.) But one must not confuse the products with the salespeople.

My business, however, is much different from all of those mentioned above. I am first and foremost a financial analyst. I do my own research, trade primarily in individual stocks and only serve clients with large portfolios. I almost never trade in mutual funds (they are usually a bad investment due to expense ratios and sales loads) and have little respect for the industry in general.

But if you want me to sue you for libel write something that inclines the reader to believe that I rip people off. I'll put your name on the complaint a well.

[Mark T]

There is a place for life insurance - having an ex-wife, I have a need for it. Over the years I have tried to steer people away from life insurance products, but that's not my line, and I usually get them after the damage is done.

I don't feel like being sued today.

[GeeGuy]

By attacking all financial planners or advisors or whatever ones you want to talk about, one simply diminishes his or her own credibility.

There are many legitimate reasons to use such a professional, that do not necessarily involve being told what financial investments to make.

[Wulfgar]

Thin skinned bunch, aren't you? Would you like to hear my lawyer jokes?

I didn't "attack" anything. I simply have an opinion, which seems too much for the delicate Mr. Budge to handle. Yes, there are reasons to have and utilize "asset managers", insurance salesmen, lawyers, politicians and many other unsavory characters. Suggesting that any have to 'like' them, or that dislike is an "attack" does your own credibility no good service.

[GeeGuy]

Maybe I misspoke, but I think calling one's profession a "low form of labor hustle for profit," could certainly be construed as an attack, as could referring to someone as "unsavory!"

[Mark T]

GeeGuy - ideally, a financial adviser will be independent of the products he promotes. But as the industry is usually run, agents are paid handsome commissions for steering clients to certain products. That is a conflict of interest, in the same way that a life insurance salesperson cannot make a living off of pure life insurance, and therefore has to steer his clients towards more commission-laden products.

So it's about conflicts of interest structurally built into these professions, and it is fair to speak of them in general and unfavorable terms.