This blog started due to a LinkedIn post held with individuals regarding corruption between third parties and government Last night as I was searched for something to watch prior to going to bed (don’t judge – I realize I should read a book 😊), I settled on Twister, the remake of the 1996 original movie!
In thinking about the movie narrative and perspective in which it was told, there were a couple observations which support my blog purpose for today and effective challenge of the movie perspective.
What I noticed:
There were two different groups chasing the tornados. While both groups had a passion for what they were doing, they criticized and judged each other for their approachwithout regard to understanding the diversity in each other’s perspective. As you continued to watch the movie, you realized they shared a common goal and purpose in what they were doing.
Let’s analyze the perspective of each group to gain an understanding for their approach and ultimately, what was common ground between the two:
- non-conventional group had to raise capital through social posts and selling merchandise to do what they loved
- conventional group raised capital through corporate sponsorships to do what they loved
The commonality between both groups was they had to appease their stakeholders – social posts (entertainment) and corporation (information). In the end the movie narrative demonstrated both groups collaborating but held the corporation at fault for portraying them as taking advantage of those individuals impacted by the storm.
This is where I “nerded out” – because of my passion for risk management, I then assessed and effectively challenged the narrative. Specifically, what was the root cause for why the individuals were in their current circumstance? Was their circumstance a result of:
- The individual/business who sold the product/service without consideration for the customer awareness, knowledge, and/or needs?
- The customer who did not perform their own due diligence around the products/service they purchased to determine whether what they were purchasing met and covered their needs?
- The individual/business who marketed, advertised, and targeted those individuals who have no other option but to sell the land?
When I asked myself these questions, I believe there is responsibility for all parties involved. Granted this does not make for a “good movie” but my purpose for effectively challenging is for individuals not to just take the movie narrative and believe it to be true, but to consider other perspectives!
My perspective is it comes down to how the product/service was advertised, communicated or advise given to the customer, and ultimately sold which really determines responsibility (aka: liability) should issues arise. To me, if you go with the movie narrative, the only reason a business would be held liable boils down to the risk below:
- Lack of transparency, understanding, and accuracy in disclosures, contract language, business arrangement
- Deceptive and/or unfair practices in activities inclusive of advice, guidance, and/or marketing/advertising
- Complexities in the business arrangement, product, and/or service
- Product / Service / Business Arrangement pricing/fees/commissions/value derived and/or charged.
Therefore, if individuals/businesses take advantage of the customer’s lack of knowledge, awareness, and circumstances, then I do see where this movie narrative had it right because they then carry more responsibility as financial inclusion has been left out of the equation.
That is why having a truly independent monitoring and oversight function as well as customer feedback/dispute tool is so critical.
Now when assessing how monitoring and oversight occurs in the typical structure (at least in my mind), you can see various layers of defense as well as gaps in safeguarding the customer, including:
*Businesses who conduct activities via emerging platforms/technologies (e.g., digital businesses and marketplaces)
While factoring the above structure, again, the biggest risk left unmitigated is lack of independence and influence by employees and/or third parties who are pressured to take an approach or make decisions which may not be in the best interests of the customer or business/government strategic objectives. To me this is where unsound business activities could occur or “bad actors”, whether internal or external, who will take advantage via fraud and other financial crimes.
In summary, consideration needs to be given to understand other perspectives before blame and judgment so one independently formulates an independent perspective and achieve the politically correct terminology: “diversity and inclusion”!
A few US regulatory agencies articles around activities being conducted to improve #financial inclusion, structure data for investment / business analysis, provide guidance, and alternatives product offers which serve multiple parties:
Acting Comptroller Discusses Financial Inclusion | OCC
Advertising and Marketing | Federal Trade Commission
Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
OCC Focuses on Historic Tax Credit Program | OCC
A few consumer reports on trends in top consumer spending areas:
Auto Lending to Servicemembers | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Negative Equity Findings from the Auto Finance Data Pilot | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Repossession in Auto Finance | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau