wash your hands off

I came across this wonderful piece by Dan Ariely (link) . I have loved this guy and absolutely love the questions he asks and the possible explanations he gives. Yes in many ways adding a disclaimer or a disclosure always allows most corporates to do whatever on hell they want.

“According to the New York Times, the drug maker disclosed that it paid $20 million in consulting and speaking fees to 4,500 doctors in the second half of 2009. The company also shelled out $15.3 million to U.S. academic medical centers for their clinical trials.
A few other drug makers have disclosed their doctor payments in the past, but this is the first time a company has disclosed its payments for clinical trials. As such, some may see this as a good deed on Pfizer’s part, a noble step towards eliminating or reducing some of the conflicts of interest in medicine.
Only, disclosure doesn’t seem to help. Several studies have shown that when professionals disclose their conflicts of interest, this only makes the problem worse. This is because two things happen after disclosure: first, those hearing the disclosure don’t entirely know what to make of it — we’re not good at weighing the various factors in any given situation — and second, the discloser feels morally liberated to act even more in his self-interest and to disregard what’s in the public good”


I worked in corporate India and banking long enough to know that the agreements are horribly one sided and long winded. There is no way for the client or consumer to effectively understand the same. After years in finance and I still don’t understand the simple disclaimer that gets added in every insurance ad –‘insurance is eth subject matter of solicitation’. What on earth does that mean? I know what it means for the marketing person. Say whatever you want and then slap on this in really rapid pace or small font. There… now you are clean. It is the same in all the Initial public offer adverts. Say whatever you want and then slap on the fact that the important disclosures and risk factors are given. The government even made it mandatory to have a form with all the risk factors written on it. This makes for a large unwieldy form. But no one reads that as well. You need a magnifying glass and a lot of patience. If they really care about informing us and keeping us aware why don’t they insist on simple language as risk? – This claim is exaggerated and is most likely not going to happen. No by investing in this fund you are not likely to buy your own aircraft twenty years hence. This company is not making real money, it is a promise, more like a dream. This investment gives the broker commission of 10%. If you default on this loan we will take your car with the help of goons if need be. If you need money for this, then you are likely not to pay this back. We need to bank with us as we have just increased this sales man’s target.

I agree with Dan. Making disclaimers mandatory and agreements mandatory have not protected the consumer. If anything they have given a free hand to business to rip us off. Possibly if we baned them and put the onus back on the corporate to ensure he has not missold. Suppose we can fight in court that we did not really understand this legalese and the court says, sure... your disclaimer must be in the same language as your ad copy, possibly then...

But for now all you have to do is slap on a really inane disclaimer and voila, you are on. Say what to, do what you to, the adams family… the adams family…