by John Darer CLU ChFC CSSC RSP
The viral discourse over a law student's draft paper continues. Talk about "wasteful dissipation" of irreplaceable time.
Today Matt Bracy offers his perspective on Jeremy Babener's revelation that essentially the "90% dissipation in 5 years" is total BS. Bracy expands this revelation to a broad generalization that he entitled "The Dissipation Myth", which begs the question of just how closely he read Babener's draft paper.
So the "90% in 5 years" stat is Harvey the Rabbit? But isn't Babener simply attacking the statistic and opining that there needs to be an empirical study to support public policy? Doesn't Babener recognize the extensive anectdotal evidence? If there is extensive anecdotal evidence then dissipation can neither be logically described as a "myth", nor the logic of discussing human frailties flawed or inappropriate. Look at the financial crisis America is in. Isn't compulsive and excessive spending by American consumers who over leveraged their home equity, or were approved for loans they shouldn't have been, a major factor in this crisis?
Bracy slaps away with "the predominant real market for structured settlement brokers is insurance companies and trial lawyers. To that market, the concept of the incompetent claimant plays well". How would Matt Bracy know "what plays well" when neither he nor his company market structured settlements to insurance companies or trial lawyers?
Perhaps "anecdotal evidence" works both ways.
As I wrote in my original June 24, 2009 commentary, I'm not sure that many settlement professionals are actively pushing the "hand me down" "90% in 5" statistic anyway. Bracy's kitschy quotation of Mark Twain "three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics" just reminds me of the embarrassment of a