This guy is a fee-only insurance consultant. I love how he explains himself and his business; I so deeply wish that more people, and especially companies, could achieve this level of transparency and information. Check out his Q&A, toward the bottom of the page, for a sample of what I’m talking about. Here is my favorite item:
How do I know that I can trust you?
“You don’t. But trust is overrated. Numerous studies have shown that most people are not good at judging who is trustworthy and who isn’t. They think they are, but they’re not. How many times have you seen a story about someone who got duped by a supposedly trustworthy person?”
12 Comments
I once read an Economist’s analysis of trust as only being possible where there was a balance of power. Whenever this balance was overset, trust was no longer possible.
He used both interpersonal and business/governmental examples as illustrations of his ideas. Talk about an eye-opener! I find myself using that criteria in all aspects of my life these days.
— hslobodaI noticed that Mr. Daily has what’s almost certainly his home address right on his web page. Not too many people would do such a thing, to say the least. HE certainly has a great deal of trust in others!
— prosaPerfect information? Pretty close ;)
— unroyalI like his approach, too.
It would be too simplistic to suggest that actual trustworthiness is inversely proportional to charisma, but charismatic people are probably the ones you have to watch out for the most, because they are the ones who can actually get you to trust them more than you should.
The cult leader is perhaps the best example of this. Lots of charisma (or perhaps a knack for finding gullible people) but exactly the kind of person who will take a person for literally everything they own, and make them enthusiastically hand it over.
I think that I don’t exude much charisma, because I have always been kind of awkward and clumsy socially, and rather introverted. I score 25 on that AQ (autism test) linked to in an earlier post. But I do tell clerks when they accidentally give me too much change, and I when a lady who used an ATM before me forgot to take her money, I alerted her. I am a terrible liar because it makes me anxious and I am not good at acting smooth and nonchalant about it. I don’t think I am morally superior, it is just that I would be a really, really bad con man, so honesty is for me the path of least resistance. Not that I am always 100% honest; I doubt any one is.
In a way, even “good” people are “good” for selfish reasons. Doing good makes them feel better. Or some people think that God will reward them and/or not punish them. Even Mother Teresa presumably expected a very big payoff from the Guy Upstairs, as well as sainthood here on earth (and Upstairs). So, her actions were essentially selfish.
— Gaijin51My favourite part is where he lists 5 of his competitors. That shows some confidence in his abilities.
— loverndNot bad, although I think insurance agents are a dying breed. If I remember correctly you mildly touched upon the subject in Freakonomics; with the internet and more and more insurance companies making their online policy services very user-friendly, middle-men like the insurance agents are losing their appeal. Perhaps write a more in-depth blog on this? Or maybe we will read more about it in Superfreakonomics…
— Charles BronsonI am going to add that to my “useful links”.
— Jun OkumuraGreat! Got me thinking too. Result of extensive thinking can be found here… nowhere as profound as yours and Levitt’s in the book though.
Agree with Gaijin- Hitler was a very charismatic person, and had a great following :D Btw, the two authors did say that every expert use their information as a leverage to their own benefit :D
— ChewxyI agree this guy has a good approach and were I looking for help finding insurance, I would want to talk with him or someone like him. Besides, he is left-handed.
I do quibble at his insistence that he does not accept commissions. Quite often, companies that pay commissions do not reduce their premium if the agent does not accept the commission. So it’s a better strategy for the agent to take the commission and offset against his fees - and fully disclose to the client exactly what is going on.
BTW, the other five agents he lists are not necessarily competitors - none is located in New York City; Glenn Daily lists a New York phone number and business address.
— John FembupMaybe holding the pen with the left to scratch with the right.
Seems like a good strategy, but almost too good. Cynically, everybody’s a shyster in his or her own right–only to varying extents. He’s surely missing out on the cost savings from economies of scale that a prototypical insurance salesman can (unknowingly) offer. I’d probably rather have a beer with him but, I wonder what’s the rent on the office in the photo and who’s bearing the cost? Among folks offering goods and services for a price, minimalizing such for the sake of social benevolence is an anomaly if existent at all.
Check out David Dondero for good tunes, south of the south and I’ve seen the love are superb.
— snubgodtohGaijin- I think there is a difference between “selfish” and acting in self interest. I would hardly refer to Mother Theresa as “selfish” but would agree that her motives for “doing good” were aligned with her self interest of gaining entrance into Heaven.
Now, on to my real comment. I think the “fee for services” approach with transparency in all brokerage professions in gaining ground. It better aligns the broke with the client. Wall Street moved towards fee based compensation (based on assets) and the mortgage business is rapidly moving towards more transparency in our compensation.
— Brian BradyAs a concerned African American parents, I have often tried to get Roland Fryer to respond to my questions about the minority achievement gap. Perhaps your blog is the way to get his attention.
I truly applaud his efforts to address the gap for students from underprivileged, undereducated households, but what accounts for findings like this, from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (September 27, 2007):
Income Differences Do Not Explain the Black-White Scoring Gap on the SAT
A number of reasons are advanced to explain the large and persisting black-white SAT scoring gap. Sharp differences in family incomes are a major factor. Always there has been a direct correlation between family income and SAT scores. For both blacks and whites, as income goes up, so do test scores.
In 2007, 25 percent of all black SAT test takers were from families with annual incomes below $20,000. Only 4 percent of white test takers were from families with incomes below $20,000. At the other extreme, 10 percent of all black test takers were from families with incomes of more than $100,000. The comparable figure for white test takers was 33 percent.
But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these observable facts from The College Board’s 2007 data on the SAT:
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 980. This is 118 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 32 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of more than $100,000.
— Evelyn O