February 2012


High schools, colleges and universities, notorious slow starters in the use of technology  are now exploiting the use of social media to its core.  Social media are used to offer promotions, discounts, and news from round the campus.

Since this generation spends a majority of their time on the internet,  social media is a great place for schools to form lasting connections. An adoption study by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth shows usage of various social media rising precipitously.

Marketing Lessons:

In this study of educational institutions, there are several lessons that can apply to financial services institutions as well. A commonality is that you are providing an intangible product, one that is heavily dependent on the dissemination of information, and that relationship and a high degree of customer focus are core elements of the business model.

Media usage:

  • Facebook:  98%
  • Twitter: 84%
  • Blogs: 47%
  • Linkedin: 47%
  • Message boards: 37%

Uses:

  • Announcements
  • Sharing learning materials
  • Promotion: virtual tours, reaching out to potential customer inquiries.
  • Promote activities

Advantages:

  • Show off the personality of the institution through customer content
  • Customer feedback and collaboration

Challenges:

  • Inauthentic: Lack of relevant knowledge about the audience, institution or products shows up
  • Lack of engagement and one-on-one

Snap Principle of Social Media:

Never forget that you are in the business of customer engagement.

Advertisements

The Powerful Influence of Emerging Market Investors

Emerging-market households are becoming a powerful new investor class, and their investment choices will help determine global demand for different asset classes. An McKinsey study finds that the financial assets holdings of investors in developing nations has grown at triple the rate of assets in developed nations. This has raised their share of global financial wealth from 7% to 21% percent over the past 10 years.  By the end of this current decade, they will hold as much as 36% of global financial wealth – between $114 trillion and $141 trillion.

A Shift from Equities to Deposit Accounts

While investors in Europe, the United States, and wealthier parts of Asia, such as Hong Kong, hold 30% to 40% of their financial assets in equities, new investors in emerging economies keep 75% in deposit accounts. The likely result is a shift in the global allocation of financial assets away from equities toward deposits and fixed-income instruments during this decade. This shift could be accelerated by aging and other trends, dampening investor appetite for equities. Equities could decline from 28% of global financial assets in 2010 to 22% in 2020.

Volatility, Debt and Global Sourcing

This shifting pattern of global wealth will create opportunities and challenges for the asset management industry and for investors.

Supply and Demand Imbalance: While total investor demand for equities will grow, it will still fall short of what corporations need by $12.3 trillion. The supply and demand imbalance for equity will be most pronounced in emerging economies, where companies need significant external financing for growth, and in Europe, where allocations to equity are already falling, although the need for additional equity is rising for banks to meet capital requirements. In the US and some other mature economies, investor demand for equities will probably still exceed what companies will need, since companies can also generate sufficient profits to finance their growth.

Volatility and Debt: As global markets adjust to close the supply and demand gap, it will result in a higher cost of equity, prompting many firms to use less equity and more debt to fund growth.  At a time when the global economy is struggling to recover from the credit bubble collapse, greater use of debt—whether from banks or through capital markets—could have negative implications. Higher leverage increases the risk of bankruptcy and economic volatility and makes the world economy more vulnerable to shocks.

Higher Finance Cost: Many companies are likely to find that they are unable to raise enough equity in their home countries or can do so only at high cost. European Banks, facing weak investor demand for equities, may find it challenging to find buyers for the equity capital they need to raise, and may have to list in markets where investors’ demand for equities is strong, or through private placements.

Global Marketing Challenges: Asset managers will need an increasingly global reach to cultivate the emerging investor classes of Asia and other regions, which will require tailored products to fit their preferences and budgets. In mature markets, aging and low returns present growth challenges. However, the industry can also profit by educating investors about the financial implications of longer life spans, including the need to get higher returns over a longer period.

 Lower Investor Returns: For investors, it will be more challenging to meet savings goals, since almost all ten-year periods in the modern era (except in Japan) equities have generated significantly higher real returns than bonds. Savings will need to increase. This will also boost long-term growth.

Financial Services Marketing Challenges

There will be increased opportunities for financial services providers to address unmet consumer needs through vehicles such as voluntary savings plans.  Market volatility will require increased attention to consumer asset allocation education and compliance.  Increased focus on improving consumer marketing and education, including better systems for online, in-person enrollment, and telephonic customer support, will be more important, especially considering the rise of the Millennial Generation in the workforce, and their lower benefit participation rate.

Snap Principle of the New Decade of Financial Marketing:

Improve your service marketing and delivery.

Positioning the Lotus



Letter from a Buddhist acquaintance:

“I will be preaching in Deer Park, Sarnath, Varanasi, India, on March 7th.  We arrive in Delhi March 4th but I need to write my sermon now because I won’t have time once I get in India. So much needs to be updated.  I have to resist trying to pack it all into just one sermon.

Certainly I can’t avoid dealing with The Four Noble Truths, which, good as they are, can stand some reworking.  To this end I have begun a draft of “The Three Reliable Propositions”.

The entire umbrella of The Noble Eightfold Path needs some attention too.  It’s a little harder but my current ideas centre around a list called “The Six Best Practices”.

The Middle Way is giving me the most trouble.  Aversion to extremes is itself an extreme.  I may need to use a bit of gloss here.

A difficult value proposition. He might want to reframe it as mass customization.

Demand declines, yet costs increase. What’s behind the cost of gas?   In a word, speculation.

The ostensible reason for the climb of crude prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange, where contracts for future delivery are traded, is growing fear of a military confrontation with Iran in the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes. Other factors cited include the bankruptcy of big European refiner Petroplus, a recent BP refinery fire in Washington state that temporarily reduced gas supply on the West Coast, bringing February gas costs to an average of $4.04 a gallon in California.

Speculators are the Main Cause

The price of oil and gasoline has far surpassed conventional supply and demand variables. Financial speculators have jumped in to drive prices higher.

If left to conventional supply and demand market fundamentals,  a barrel would likely be about $75, in mid February, 2012, which is the cost of production and delivery for a barrel of oil from Canada. These are the market-fundamentals cost for a barrel of oil.  Above that, speculation sets the prices. Remember that Canada is the largest supplier of imported oil to the United States, which now actually produces more than half of the oil it consumes. Factoring in a fear of a supply disruption premium puts the price somewhere in the $80 to $85 range for a barrel of crude oil. But, while crude was trading at $79.20 a barrel only four months ago, it suddenly rose to $106 a barrel Tuesday afternoon, February,21, 2012. So, even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate.

Historically, financial speculators accounted for only about 30 percent of oil trading in commodity markets, as producers and end users made up about 70 percent. Today it’s almost the reverse.  Speculators who’ll never take delivery of oil make up 64 percent of the market. A McClatchy review of the latest Commitment of Traders report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, shows that producers and merchants made up just 36 percent of all contracts traded in the week ending Feb. 14.

Big Wall Street traders on Tuesday projected oil will rise above $112 a barrel; some such as Swiss giant Vitol even suggested $150-a-barrel oil is coming soon. When they dominate the market, as they do, speculators’ bids can make their prophecies self-fulfilling. “These people are not there to be heroes. They are there to make money.” said  said Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. “I still remain convinced oil prices are inflated…Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby is the strongest of any single lobby. I’ve been in this business 30 years, and I can tell you I think this is smoke and mirrors.”

No Shortage to Explain Rising Prices

While crude was trading at $79.20 a barrel only four months ago, and suddenly rose to $106 a barrel Tuesday afternoon on news that Iran would halt shipment of oil to Britain and France, these countries had already had stopped buying Iranian oil, and according to The Wall Street Journal, the International Energy Agency ‘s director for energy markets and security, noted that “there are alternative supplies that can make up for any loss of Iranian exports.”

In mid February, 2012 the nationwide average price for a gallon of gasoline reached $3.57, compared with $3.38 a month ago and $3.17 a year ago. It takes about $6 more to fill up the tank than it did this time last year.  Naturally, this raises concerns that it may be disruptive to the economic recovery.

Oil and gasoline are not in short supply, and demand remains weak. as shown in the weekly energy market update by the U.S. Energy Information Administration  published for the week ending Feb. 10:

“Total products supplied over the last four-week period have averaged 18.3 million barrels per day, down by 4.6 percent compared to the similar period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline product supplied has averaged nearly 8.1 million barrels per day, down by 6.4 percent from the same period last year,” said the EIA, the statistical arm of the Energy Department. Inventories of stored oil are also unusually high. “At 339.1 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are in the upper limit of the average range for this time of year,” the agency said. “Total motor gasoline inventories increased by 0.4 million barrels last week and are in the upper limit of the average range.”

In fact, U.S. demand and consumption patterns are so abnormal compared to recent decades that oil and gasoline are both now being exported to Europe, Asia and Latin America. Exports of U.S. refined product averaged 2.928 million barrels per day over the four weeks ending on Feb. 10, compared to 2.190 million bpd for the four weeks ending Feb. 11, 2011. Techniques like hydraulic fracturing also means that America’s domestic production of crude oil is rising — 18% since 2008, so the U.S. now supplies more than half of its petroleum needs from domestic fields.

Analyst Thomas Yoichi Adolff at Credit Suisse notes that demand has fallen so much that 31 uneconomic refineries have been shut down in recent years, with two dozen more on the chopping block. The refiners that are left earn an average profit of about $11 for every barrel they process or about 26 cents a gallon, in line with average profitability of the past decade.  Given the average 39 cents per gallon of state and federal taxes, their profit margins are less than 10%.

John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute says that after taxes and refiners’ profits, 84% of the price of gasoline is tied directly to the price of crude oil.

So oil’s price shot up simply because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the trading. Since oil prices are the biggest component in the price of gasoline, this is why pump prices are soaring.

Forbes: Don’t Worry, Be Happy

According to Forbes, the end is not in sight.  They miss the point though, and blame it on the Saudis, recommending that you buy crude futures or shares in North America-based, oil-leveraged companies, such as Continental Resources, Canadian Natural Resources and Occidental Petroleum.

And Forbes contributor Christopher Hellman points out that at $3.50 a gallon, fuel makes up just 29% of the total cost of driving. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation and finance charges on the average car come to about $5,600 a year, while the gas to drive 15,000 miles will only set you back $2,300. I know that’s a lot for many people. He points out that the average family could offset most of that fuel bill by cutting off its cable TV and subscribing to Netflix.

Gasoline is still cheap in America, thanks to combination frugal driving trends spurred by the recession and remarkable growth in domestic supplies. Gasoline usage has dropped significantly, plunging 12% from 9.29 million barrels per day in 2007 to 8.2 million barrels per day recently, mostly  in the past year. And Americans are driving fewer miles — 100 million miles fewer last year than in 2007, a 2% reduction.

Snap Principle of Rising Commodity Prices:

Reduce consumption.

Data management is having a dramatic change on marketing. Companies that rely on promotions, merchandizing improvements and other traditional marketing tools are losing market share across a range of profitable segments to companies that invest in their ability to collect, integrate, and analyze data from each distribution unit and use this data to run real-world experiments.

By constantly testing, bundling, synthesizing, and making information instantly available across the organization—from the branch or store to the CFO’s office, a company can become far nimbler.

Data Explosion

Data has been particularly effective in managing employees;  tracking purchases and sales, and offering clues about how customers will behave. But over the last few years, the volume of data has exploded.

In 15 of the US economy’s 17 sectors, companies with more than 1,000 employees store, on average, over 235 terabytes of data—more data than is contained in the US Library of Congress. Reams of data still flow from financial transactions and customer interactions but also cascade in at unparalleled rates from new devices and multiple points along the value chain. Just think about what could be happening at your own company right now: sensors embedded in process machinery may be collecting operations data, while marketers scan social media or use location data from smartphones to understand teens’ buying quirks. Data exchanges may be networking your supply chain partners, and employees could be swapping best practices on corporate wikis. – McKinsey Quarterly, October 2011 (Are you ready for the era of ‘big data’?)

New academic research suggests that companies that use data and business analytics to guide decision making are more productive and experience higher returns on equity than competitors that don’t. McKinsey research shows that “networked organizations” can gain an edge by opening information conduits internally and engaging customers and suppliers strategically through Web-based exchanges of information.

“Big Data” in a Nutshell

The key elements of big data are:

  1. Companies can  collect data across business units and even from partners and customers.
  2. A flexible infrastructure can integrate information and scale up effectively to meet the surge.
  3. Experiments, algorithms, and analytics can make sense of all this information.

Implications

The Loss of Proprietary Data: As information becomes more accessible across sectors, it can threaten companies that have relied on proprietary data as a competitive asset. Take the real-estate or travel industries, for example, which enjoy access to transaction data and data on the bid and ask behavior of buyers, which require significant expense and effort to acquire. In recent years, online specialists data and analytics have started to bypass agents, permitting buyers and sellers to exchange perspectives on the value of properties and creating parallel sources for real-estate data. Cost and pricing data are also becoming more accessible across a spectrum of industries.

Better Integration:  Your company’s data is often housed in various departmental silos that impedes timely use. McKinsey notes that financial institutions in particular suffer from failure to share data among diverse lines of business, such as financial markets, money management, and lending, which precludes a coherent view of individual customers or understanding of the links among financial markets.

Integrating data from multiple systems and inviting collaboration among  functional units or coordination with external suppliers and customers allows partners to collaborate during a project’s design phase, which is a crucial determinant of final costs.

Smarter Decisions: Big data introduces the possibility for a different type of decision making. Using controlled experiments, companies can test hypotheses and analyze results to guide investment decisions and operational changes. This can help you distinguish causation from mere correlation, and reduce variability of outcomes and improve financial performance.  Researchers can model the impact of variations in design and delivery of products and services, training and other processes that impact productivity and sales.

Leading online companies are continuous testers. They may allocate a  portion of their Web page views to conduct experiments that reveal what factors drive higher user engagement or promote sales. McDonald’s has equipped some stores with devices that gather operational data as they track customer interactions, traffic in stores, and ordering patterns.

“Natural” experiments that identify the sources of variability in performance can improve productivity. One organization that collected data on multiple groups of employees doing similar work at different sites found that simply making the data available spurred lagging workers to improve their performance.

Real-Time Targeting: Companies have long used data to segment and target customers, but big data makes real-time personalization possible.

Tracking the behavior of individual customers from Internet click streams, allows you to update their preferences, and model their likely behavior in real time. You could then recognize when customers are nearing a purchase decision and nudge the transaction to completion by bundling preferred products, offered with reward program savings. Such real-time targeting,  leveraging data from a rewards program, cam increase purchases of higher-margin products by its most valuable customers.

One personal-line insurer, tailors insurance policies for each customer, using constantly updated profiles of customer risk, changes in wealth, home asset value, and other data inputs.

Quicker Metrics:  Products can now generate data streams that track their usage. Some retailers use “sentiment analysis” techniques to mine the huge streams of data generated by consumers using various types of social media to gauge responses to new marketing campaigns in real time, and adjust strategies accordingly. This can cut weeks from the normal feedback and modification cycle.

The bottom line can be improved performance, better risk management, and consumer insights that would otherwise remain hidden.

Complications

The greater access to personal information that big data often demands will place a spotlight on the tension between privacy and convenience.

Certainly, consumers should be made aware that they benefit from the “economic surplus” that big data generates in the form of lower prices, better alignment of products with consumer needs, and lifestyle improvements from better health to more fluid social interactions.

However, privacy and data security concerns will grow.  With more open access to information, new devices for gathering it, and cloud computing means that that IT architectures will become more integrated and outward facing and thereby pose greater risks to data security and intellectual property. A proactive response to this is vital.

Conclusion

Done right, however, big data could improve productivity and produce hundreds of billions of dollars in new value if you can more proactively capitalize on it, you will not be blindsided by it. And, according to McKinsey Global Institute’s analysis the Finance and Insurance sector is one that could benefit most from this in terms of ease of capture and value potential.

Snap Principle of Big Data:

Capitalize on it now or be blindsided.

Here’s an informative  account of Sandy Weill’s creation of the first full-service superbank, Citigroup, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that stood in his way .

This is from a report by Frontline that discusses the end of Glass Steagal and  interviews of former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, former Federal Reserve Board member Alan Blinder, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, financial historian Charles Geisst, the Precusor Group’s Scott Cleland, and Kenneth Guenther of the Independent Community Bankers of America.

Excerpt: Arthur Levitt,  SEC chairman  from 1993 to 2001:

 “It was apparent to me that the protections of Glass-Steagall had already largely eroded. But Congress, at several times, nearly passed a bill to do away with Glass-Steagall. It was clear that it was a question not of whether but when Glass-Steagall would go. Millions of dollars were pouring in the campaign coffers of senators and congressmen who were set to do this.”

Excerpt: Kenneth Guenther, President and CEO, Independent Community Bankers of America:

“We are talking about the largest financial merger in the world…for the first time in the modern history of the United States, since 1933, the largest bank, one of the largest securities firms, one of the largest insurance firms, being put together under common ownership.  Here you have the leadership — Sandy Weill of Travelers and John Reed of Citicorp — saying, “Look, the Congress isn’t moving fast enough. Let’s do it on our own.” And so…they get the blessing of the chairman of the Federal Reserve system in early April, when legislation is pending…And they pulled this off with the blessings of the president of the United States, President Clinton; the chairman of the Federal Reserve system, Alan Greenspan; and the secretary of the treasury, Robert Rubin.And then, when it’s all over, what happens? The secretary of the treasury becomes the vice chairman of the emerging Citigroup.”

Good Reading.

This is an article by Paul Harrison, Senior lecturer, Graduate School of Business at Deakin University.
As you read these findings about how the brain works, look for important applications that translate to marketing principles,  highlighted in green. This research touches on things including: consumer decisions, investment and business decisions,  financial literacy training, and how to most effectively engage consumers.

The notion we make rational economic decisions is being challenged by research on the brain

In a 2008 paper on neuroeconomics, Carnegie Mellon University economist George Loewenstein said: “Whereas psychologists tend to view humans as fallible and sometime even self-destructive, economists tend to view people as efficient maximisers of self-interest who make mistakes only when imperfectly informed about the consequences of their actions.”

This view of humans as completely rational – and the market as eminently efficient – is relatively recent. In 1922, in the Journal of Political Economy, Rexford G. Tugwell, said (to paraphrase) that a mind evolved to function best in “the exhilarations and the fatigues of the hunt, the primitive warfare and in the precarious life of nomadism”, had been strangely and quickly transported into a different milieu, without much time to modify the equipment of the old life.

The field of economics has since rejected this more pragmatic (and I would argue, realistic) view of human behaviour, in favour of the simpler and neater “rational choice” perspective, which viewed the power of reflection as the only force driving human behaviour.

But to paraphrase sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, our currently held views of what is reasonable, sensible and good sense tend to take shape in response to the realities “out there” as seen through the prism of human practice – what humans currently do, know how to do, are trained, groomed and inclined to do.

We compare ourselves to people we know, and come into contact with – either through social groups, or lately, with the advent of mass and, even fragmented media, people we think are like us.

Regardless of what is happening in Greece or Spain, or Yemen, we think about our situation, first and foremost.

And if we are being told consistently that our life is bad, and is going to get worse, then we start to believe that we live in desperate times, regardless of what we might be told through statistics and economic models.

Risk as feelings: how our brain makes decisions

Under pressure or stress, it is our amygdala, the emotional centre of the brain, that takes control, even as the thinking brain, the neocortex, is still analysing and coming to a decision.

George Loewenstein and his colleagues have suggested that people react to risks at two levels – by evaluating them in a dispassionate way, but also at an emotional level.

He called this the Risk as Feelings thesis. He argued we overreact emotionally to new risks (which are often low-probability events), and underreact to those risks that are familiar (although these events are more likely to occur). So, as Loewenstein explains, “this is why people seemed to initially overreact to the risk of terrorism in the years immediately following 9/11 [and the Bali bombings], but tend to underreact to the much more familiar and more likely risks of talking on the mobile phone while driving, and wearing seatbelts”.

More and more, psychological and neurological science is discovering that much of our decision-making is made at an unconscious and emotional level. What we are now finding is that when we are thinking about mundane and simple issues, such as small calculations, the brain areas associated with rational planning (such as the pre-frontal cortex) tend to be more active.

But when thinking about difficult, exciting, interesting activities, such as investing in a new business, or perhaps buying a $10 million lottery ticket, the brain areas associated with emotion – such as the midbrain dopamine system – become more active.

Images, colours, music, even social discussion means that the midbrain emotional area becomes dominant, and the rational part of the brain finds it hard to resist the temptation. The emotional centres of the brain simply tell the rational part to shape up or ship out.

And then, a very funny thing happens. The rational part of the brain agrees, and starts to look for evidence that supports the emotional brain – it becomes an ally in the search for reasons why the emotional choice is a good one. (All of this is going on very quickly and we are not conscious of it.)

The “interpreter” function

And probably one of the most important discoveries arising from research is that the human brain contains an “interpreter” function that generates a conscious explanation for any unconsciously motivated action or unconsciously generated feeling, and makes us believe that the conscious explanation actually was the reason for the action or feeling.

So, if we are confronted with information that does not connect with our self-image, knowledge, or conceptual framework, the interpreter creates a belief to enable all incoming information to make sense and mesh with our ongoing idea of our self. As Michael Gazzaniga says in his book, The Ethical Brain: “The interpreter seeks patterns, order, and causal relationships.”

So when it comes to buying something that is based purely on chance, or something that we don’t completely understand, for most of us, it’s our emotions that make the decision – there is nothing rational about it.

Optimism bias and the effort of rejection

And once we’ve made the decision, the optimism bias, amongst other things, kicks in to protect our ego. To some degree, the optimism bias causes many of us to overestimate our degree of control as well as our odds of success.

But optimism isn’t a bad thing. If we didn’t make decisions based on emotions and optimism, we would never get out of bed in the morning, and optimism makes us feel like we are in control, which is good.

Research in human decision-making suggests that humans are “hard-wired” to believe, predominantly because it requires significant cognitive resources to test an assumption, so it is more efficient to believe in a claim than to reject it. This is why we mostly trust big institutions, well-known brands, and figures of authority, just because we don’t have the resources to test every assumption we make.

One way to think about this approach is to consider how we might assess the arguments presented to us, when we make an investment decision. Distraction, for example, is a very useful way to convince a person to accept an idea before they have had time to comprehend it. According to Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert, once they have accepted the idea, they have to unaccept it.

In other words, the acceptance of an idea is automatic, whereas the subseqent rejection of that idea requires more effort than its acceptance.

And this flaw in our thinking can have serious consequences. What ends up happening is that we want to believe: partly because of the way that we process information, and partly because once we have accepted an idea, it is our ego’s role to do everything it can to convince is that we have made a good decision.

In the world of business, wanting to believe can mean the difference between pursuing a particular business decision, having convinced ourselves that it was the right one, and looking at the information that tells us it is not. Wanting to believe also means that it becomes difficult for us to reverse our decisions, even when the evidence tells us that we should.

So can we trained out of this?

At face value, financial literacy training seems to be a very sensible and rational response to a tricky area. But there is also evidence to suggest that the more familiar and more comfortable we become with numbers, the more likely we are to make mistakes.

Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that experts are more prone to making poor forecasts in their field of expertise simply because of their overinflated view of their superiority, and their willingness to not always use evidence when making predictions. It’s called the overconfidence effect.

It might even be that it would be better not to just teach financial literacy, but to focus on a range of critical thinking methods that would hopefully make it easier for us to engage with those numbers.

Research suggests most of us simply don’t think about numbers when we are confronted with them – we just accept them at face value. Both Gerd Gigerenzer and Eric Sowey have argued that people are willing to accept a statistic that a perceived authority presents on trust, rather than argue back.

A more effective approach might not be to simply teach financial literacy, but to teach critical thinking – including critical thinking around numbers and authority.

The other issue to consider is when we teach financial literacy and critical thinking. I would argue we should be encouraging children to be critical thinkers as early as possible.

Encouraging children to (respectfully) ask their teachers and parents why – and the parents and teachers giving a respectful answer – is not going to lead to the downfall of society. If anything, it is going to lead to adults who may think more reflectively about their choices.

If our children have positive experiences in relation to learning early, they are more likely to stop and reflect on their behaviour later in life. They are also more likely to be better students of life, in general.

This article is an edited extract of Paul’s presentation, ‘How people make complex decisions in turbulent times’ to the ASIC Summer School 2012: Building resilience in turbulent times, February 20-21, Sydney.

Original article with embedded videos can be viewed here.

Snap Principle of Belief:

Largely non-cognitive processes impact our views of the world.

Next Page »