Archive for category Economics

Cereberus Now Has Three Heads

I suppose I’m a bit of an oddity – an ardent free trader who only buys American nameplate cars (kind of the exact opposite of all those “progressives” who decry American companies sending jobs oversees but who will only drive a foreign nameplate car). I’m not a car guy, but I have paid some attention to Chrysler if only because of friends who work there. While Ford and GM continue their slumber, Chrylser has been shocking – first being bought by Daimler, then being sold to Cerebus, then hiring Robert Nardelli of all people, and now hiring Toyota’s top American (in both senseis of the word). Now that Oldsmobile has gone the way of all flesh, I can say without risk of legal intanglements that this isn’t your father’s Chrysler. I suppose it just shows you that it’s the company closest to going the way of Oldsmobile that makes the biggest transformations.

Now Cereberus has Lasorda, Nardelli, and Press to run their car company – three heads are better than 1!

Tags: , ,

How Real Estate Commissions Work

We sold our house. I gathered a number of stories along the way, some good and some bad. I also learned a few things about how real estate commissions work. This information was surprisingly hard to obtain, but very important and valuable. So I’m sharing it with you for free, all part of the life services we offer here at funmurphys.com.

First, some definitions: The seller owns the house and wants to sell it. The buyer is thinking of buying a house. The seller and buyer may be working through real estate agents who represent them, the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent. The seller’s agent is also called the listing agent. Licensed real estate agents are often known as Realtors (TM).

Here’s the executive summary: The home seller pays a percentage commission to the selling (listing) agent, which the agent splits in half with her office. If there is a buyer’s agent, that agent also receives a percentage commission, deducted from the selling agent’s commission. The buying agent also splits the commission in half with his office. A lot of implications flow from this seemingly simple arrangement. Take a deep breath . . .

You can simply sell or buy a house on your own, but it’s a Big Scary Process involving a lot of legal paperwork and financial transactions. So most home sellers sign a listing contract with a seller’s agent and let them deal with all that. The seller and agent agree on a commission based on the price of the house; the “classic” real estate commission is 6% of the sales price, but that percentage is neither the typical commission nor the average commission (more on that later). The seller’s agent receives her commission at closing, when the house is finally sold. If the house does not sell during the term of the listing contract, the agent gets nothing. Of course she’ll try to avoid that scenario.

Let’s use a house base price of $400,000, which should be fairly typical for people reading this column. A 6% commission of $400k is $24,000. The seller’s agent usually splits the commission 50-50% with his real estate office. In this case the agent would receive $12k at closing, and the agent’s office would receive $12k.

The 6% real estate commission is not sacrosanct! Many real estate agents want to list and sell your house, so the seller can negotiate that commission. You can ask if a potential agent will accept a 5% commission, or even a 4% commission; and if they want your business, they may take it. Or try some fractional percentage. They might take you up on the offer, depending on a lot of factors like their workload, the house’s likely price, how quickly your house is likely to sell, and so on. “Everything is negotiable.” Sellers who calculate the commission amount before signing the listing contract often realize that $24k is a big chunk of change to be sending out the door, and start to wonder if there is some way they can reduce that amount? How about a 5% commission instead, or $20k?

At this point we have enough information to bust one myth right away. Here is the myth: Real estate agents will seek the highest sales price for your house because it means a bigger commission for them. Like most myths, there is a grain of truth in this statement. Anybody with a calculator (and most people without one) can see that a higher sales price yields a higher commission.

But “everything is negotiable,” especially the price of the home itself. The seller may occasionally get a buyer who will pay the listing price right away, but more often the buyer offers less than the asking price. How much less? A buyer might offer $380k, the seller might counter to $390k, and the two parties will eventually agree on $387k. The monetary increments in house negotiation are on the order of $10k. Amounts of $10k will make or break the deal.

$10k is a lot of money to the buyer and the seller – you can take your family on a Hawaiian vacation for that! It’s worth haggling over. Are you working on margin? – you’ve probably got a mortgage to pay off, or another house to buy. But what is that $10k to the real estate agent? She and her office stand to collect $24k if the sale closes successfully. The difference in commission over a $10k difference is only $600. Does she want to risk the entire $24k over a measly six hundred bucks? No way! She wants the deal to go through. Her motivation structure is set up to reward deals completed, not to squeeze the most commission out of each deal and risk losing the sale entirely. Yes, it would be nice to earn a higher commission, and the seller will probably give her glowing referrals if she gets a good price. But the motivation structure of the traditional real estate commission is set up primarily to reward sales completed.Price increments in the amount of $10k are of secondary importance to the agent.

Now let’s suppose the seller has negotiated a 5% commission with the listing agent, and the house is on the market. A buyer comes along in the company of a real estate agent, which is the usual scenario. The buyer likes the house right away and offers the full $400k. How does the buyer’s agent get paid?

The buying and selling agents do NOT split the real estate commission 50-50! Surprise! The commission for the buyer’s agent is fixed, and this percentage is sacrosanct for the local area! In my region of Colorado the buyer’s commission is 2.8%, fixed not by law but by rigid local custom and practice. Real estate companies that subscribe to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) agree to honor the buyer’s commission. If you look at the bottom of an MLS listing you may see something like “BA 2.80”. This means Buyer Agency 2.80%, which is what the seller has agreed to pay a real estate agent working for the buyer.

Everybody wants to attract a buyer, and one way to do this is to attract the buyer’s agent. The 2.8% buyer’s agent commission is sacred because nobody wants their 2.5% commission sneered at, and passed over, by those buying agents out there trolling for properties. So everybody marches in step with the standard buyer’s agent commission, and dares not go below that amount. The professionals know these rules and are very reluctant to break them. And a standard buyer’s commission helps to keep the agent neutral with regard to multiple houses. (In some places there has even emerged a practice of offering agent incentives – a larger commission for the buyer’s agent – as a way of attracting buying agents. This practice is pretty much a bribe and ought to be illegal, but isn’t. Yet.)

Back to the example. The total 5% commission paid by the seller on $400k is $20k. The buying agent gets 2.8%, or $11,200. The selling agent gets what’s left over: 2.2%, or $8,800. Notice that the buying agent gets more than the selling agent. $2,400 more. Are you comfortable with that?

You might be more comfortable to learn that buying agents do most of the property tours and walk-throughs. 9 out of 10 showings on our house were conducted by buyer’s agents, not by the listing agent or by me. The listing agent puts on open houses, posts advertising, and talks up the property, but most of the showings are done by another agent (working with the buyer). Feel better? Maybe, but it still seems weird to me that the commission is not split 50-50. That’s Weirdness #1.

Since the buyer’s commission is fixed at 2.8%, you can see that the listing agent gets really squeezed by lower commissions. A 4% total commission only leaves the selling agent with 1.2%, and anything below 3% will lose them money.

The standard listing contract states that the real estate commission is paid by the seller. In our earlier example, the buying agent received $11,200 of that commission. Colorado has a required notice to clarify the relationships, saying that the buying agent is working in the buyer’s interests, and the selling agent is working in the seller’s interests. Nice to know. So our poor seller is paying the buyer’s agent $11,200 to negotiate intentionally, deliberately, and professionally against him! That is Weirdness #2. The seller pays the buyer’s agent to work against him and against his best interests. I am not making this up.

A listing contract is a pretty thorough document, specifying conditions and terms and payment. The relationship of a home-buyer with a buyer’s agent is less well-defined. Suppose you have looked over a bunch of houses over the past year, got serious about a few of them, and have finally settled on one house to buy. Who is your buyer’s agent, and who gets the buying agent’s commission?

Real estate agents are professionals, and they want to avoid problems with each other and with their clients. To this end, they have adopted certain practices to ensure fairness and avoid client-stealing. The accepted practice is this: The licensed agent who first showed you the property receives the real estate commission. “Showing the property” means accompanying you in person on a physical tour of the home and grounds. The official buyer’s agent is the one who first set foot on the property with you.

Quiz

This practice has some implications that might not be obvious to the casual “Looky Louie” browsing through the neighborhood. Take this test:

You and your spouse are thinking that you might move someday, and you come upon a neighborhood that looks nice. Sure enough, you see a house for sale that’s attractive from the outside. You pick up a flyer from the sign on the lawn, and call the listing agent to arrange a showing.A couple days later you tour the house with the listing agent. But the bedrooms are not laid out the way you want, or the back yard is too small, or something else is not right. It’s a nice house, but it won’t do for you. You thank the agent politely for her time. As you are leaving, she says, “Before I left the office I gathered a few listings of similar homes in the neighborhood. Would you have time to go look at those?” How do you respond?

Possible Responses:
A. “Sure, we have another hour to spare. Let’s go look at them.”
B. “Not on your life! What are you trying to do, trick me?!! Get away!”
C. “Not today, but if you give me your business card I might call you later.”
D. Without a word, you snatch the listings from her hand, jump in your car, and speed off! As you make your get-away you copy down the addresses and then shred the listings!
E. “No, thank you.”

The answer here is that you can do anything you want, but the agent’s innocuous offer has some big implications that most people don’t realize. Consider Response A: If the agent (whom you just met) accompanies you physically to the 2-3 other houses this afternoon, she will have locked up your buying relationship with that house. That’s the commonly accepted practice among real estate agents, remember? In other words, if you later decide to buy one of those 2-3 houses, you’ll have to buy it through her. Did you realize that?

When you called to make the original appointment, the agency may have asked you, “Are you working with a real estate agent?” You truthfully answered “No,” because you were just looking around at that point. You expected to deal with the listing agent on the original house, but she doesn’t represent the 2-3 other properties. At least, she didn’t until this afternoon. But now she represents you if you want to buy one of those other houses. That’s Weirdness #3.

Response B is not good; it’s rarely productive to be rude to someone for no good reason. But at least it demonstrates that you know what’s at stake here. (To be fair, she’s probably not trying to “trick you”, she’s merely offering professional assistance. Then again, her name is printed at the bottom of each listing, leading you to believe that she is the listing agent for those properties, too.)

Response D is a dramatic flourish for the Walter Mitty in all of us, and it would be nice to have those other listings. But the agent has performed a small service for you in running a property search – it would be more ethical to log onto realtor.com or coloproperty.com or zillow.com and find those listings yourself.

Response A is okay if you really want to use that agent to buy those properties. But bear in mind that buying a house can be stressful, and you have at least a month of high-intensity business relationship ahead of you before closing. Weren’t you going to interview a few real estate agents before choosing one to work with? Now you’re stuck with one you didn’t even select.

Response E is kind of abrupt. But it’s clear.

Response C is my choice, unless I really take a dislike to the agent. We might decide to work with her after talking it over, and she’s already shown some initiative. Why not take her business card without promising anything?

Who Pays?

Who really pays the real estate commission? The seller does, right? It says so right there in black and white on the listing contract! The buyer gets all these real estate services for free, right?

Not so fast! Remember that the seller sets the asking price for the house, knowing that they will have to pay a 5% commission out of that sales price. The seller will only sell if they get a certain minimal amount in return. So it’s natural for the seller to raise their asking price by 5%. Now it’s the buyer who pays the commission, because they have to pay a higher sales price. Remember that the buyer is the one who will supply all the money to complete this transaction. The buyer has to finance the full amount of the sales price, which includes the real estate commission.

In summary: It’s not clear who really pays the real estate commission. But no matter how you figure it, real estate commissions have the effect of sending 5% of the property’s value off into the real estate industry every time a house is sold.

Most home-buyers go around with a buyer’s agent because they think that they are getting something for free. But it’s not free! The buyer is paying for that service whether they realize it or not.

Yes, I know that a buyer’s agent will negotiate for you, will protect your interests, and so on. They can make sure that a few hundred dollars of plumbing repairs are completed before closing. But most buyer’s agents I worked with urged me to raise the offers I was making! “You’re going to insult the seller with a lowball offer.” Most seller’s agents urged me to lower my asking price. It felt like they were working for the other party, not for me. Remember that real estate agents are motivated to close the deal.

Real estate agents are professionals who provide a service. If the value of that service to you is worth $10,000, then go ahead and hire them. But make sure you know what you’re getting, and what the real costs and implications are. If you are searching for properties on your own, calling listing agents to arrange showings, checking out comparable sales on zillow.com, and you know the local neighborhood; do you really need to pay an agent $10,000 to tag along behind you and fill out some spaces on a standard sales contract?

The Unattached Buyer

Weirdness #4 comes when you consider an unattached buyer. Let’s call him George. George has read the first part of this article, has done some research, has bought and sold houses before, and has decided to buy a house on his own this time. He’d like to save some money somehow. George has successfully fended off the overtures of agents at open houses, has never gone on additional showings offered by listing agents, and certainly has never signed an exclusive right-to-buy contract.

George finds a $400k home that he likes, and he thinks the asking price is reasonable. Knowing that the seller will not have to pay the 2.8% buyer’s commission, he considers offering 2.8% under the asking price. But George is a good guy, and he realizes that the selling agent will have to do more work because he’s not familiar with mortgages and inspections and title companies and the like. It’s just easier to work with another licensed agent. So George offers 2% less than the asking price, figuring that this offer will save everybody money and compensate the agent fairly.

And he’s right! Unfortunately, the seller has signed a listing contract with her agent, without first reading the contract carefully and considering what happens to an unattached buyer. The usual listing contract specifies that if a buyer has no agent, the selling agent will work as a “transaction broker” instead. The transaction broker works for neither party, but guides the transaction to completion. That’s great. But the transaction broker still receives the full 5% commission, according to the standard listing contract!

George submits an offer for $392k, and is puzzled when the seller doesn’t consider this to be a full-price offer. The problem is that the listing agent has already claimed the 2.8% buyer’s commission by the terms of the listing contract. The seller did not notice this provision, and there is no automatic discount for unattached buyers. There should be.

It’s not clear how George can get the discount that he rightfully earned by doing all the legwork himself. This is Weirdness #4. The selling agent knows perfectly well what’s going on, but might not explain it to the seller. The seller might simply accept the offer as is. But if not, George and the seller have to hope that the listing agent will agree to reduce her commission in order to make the sale. Will she do that? Will she kick up a fuss even though she comes out better off than if George had an agent? Who knows?

The seller could have insisted on a 2% discount for unattached buyers, and written that into the listing contract up front (and specified a 3% commission to the transaction broker). The listing agent will probably say that “most agents wouldn’t do this” and agree to it anyway. Real estate agents know that most buyers come with an agent. But the seller wants to sell her house, and one way to do that is to offer discounts to whomever she can.

Recommendations:

The buyer and the seller should each pay for their own services rendered to them. This practice of the seller paying the buyer’s agent is just nuts.

If you are a home buyer, and you want to work with a real estate agent in the classical manner, go ahead. A professional can save you a lot of hassle. But don’t get attached to an agent without realizing what is happening, and what the implications are when you set foot on a new property.

An unattached buyer has about a 2% negotiating advantage, but it’s not clear how to use that edge. Be creative and negotiate. Consider signing up with one of the buyer services that refund most of the buyer’s commission to the buyer.

If you are a seller, consider listing your house with one of the discount brokerages. They charge a monthly fee of about $100 for the MLS listing, and a flat fee on the order of $1,000 to handle closing. Don’t worry about showing the house yourself – the few times that you personally walk someone through will be enjoyable!

Consider hiring a real estate agent on a flat fee basis. They really do know a lot! $1,000 is a reasonable fee to walk you through the process once the sales price is agreed upon, especially if there are problems. The title company is supposed to manage the transaction itself, but an agent can work out disagreements over the inspection and other matters.

If you are a seller, get one of your friends who has an eye for interior design and decorating (you know who they are). Ask them to walk through your house and let you know how to spruce it up (or clean it out) for sale. Serve them dinner afterwards.

Buy a five-gallon bucket of white semi-gloss interior paint. Start repainting the rooms that are not white. Do not stop painting until the bucket is empty.

Good luck!

Tags:

Circuit City Cost Cutting

I have never been a big fan of Circuit City and we usually go to Best Buy in the Murphy Family. I did buy a camcorder there a few years ago for which the salesperson knocked 200 dollars off the price just so I’d buy the 200 dollar extended warrenty. I later decided I was $200 down on the deal and haven’t been back. So I don’t see the latest news as out of character: Circuit City to Fire 3,400, Rehire Cheaper Workers .

“Firing 3,400 of arguably the most successful sales people in the company could prove terrible for morale,” Colin McGranahan, an analyst with Sanford Bernstein & Co., wrote in a note today. “The question remains as to whether Circuit City can rebuild in time for the all-important holiday season.”

I’m thinking that firing 3,400 of arguably the most successful sales people could prove terrible for more than just morale, I’m thinking perhaps, just perhaps, it could prove terrible for sales as well. Although if the salesman who moved money from the store’s pocket to his own is one of the highly compensated ones, maybe not.

Since I’m not one of the people being fired, I can be detached and think that this will provide a nice economics case study in cost cutting. Arguably (i.e. I’m leaving wiggle room for later) it will be used as a case study in business school – but I will leave it up to an excercise for the reader to decide if it will be held up as an effective, an ineffective, or a disastrous way to cut costs.

UPDATE: Disastrous way to cut costs is the answer

Tags:

585 Billion Dollars

Yikes! Does our state and federal governments spend 585 Billion dollars a year on means tested anti-poverty programs?

Moby seems to think that’s how much we spent on Iraq up until 2006.

Robert Waste thinks thats how much we spend on our permanent urban crises of high levels of poverty, hunger, homelessness, crime, and low levels of funding for mass transit, infrastructure needs, and education.

Or is that how much money social security taxes will bring in in 2014 in 1997 dollars (doesn’t that accounting just make your head swim).

How about the total value of service exports world-wide in 1981 (I assume in 1981 dollars).

Or even the total value of Chinese exports in 2004.

OK, this was sparked by a Bizzy Blog post that used the 585 billion dollar number while noting that it was unconfirmed to determine:

If there are 40 million people living in poverty in the US (that would be 13.3% of the population, slightly higher than the current official rate), that would mean we are spending $14,625 on EVERY man, woman, and child living in poverty. A married family of four in poverty could live very nicely on over $58,500 tax-free dollars a year, as could a single parent with two kids on almost $44,000; but of course, the money and the value of the services isn’t getting to them.

Well, I didn’t a little searching (as you can hopefully tell) and back in 2001 Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundationtestified before congress that offical figures showed that in 2000 the feds and the states spent 438 billion dollars in welfare and projected the sum to rise to 626 billion dollars — or you can check out the Heritage Report. I couldn’t confirm the 585 figure for 2006, but it sure looks to be in the ballpark.

If we aren’t talking about dollars, LG Electronics made a net profit o 585 billion KRW in 2004

Tags:

A Little Management Wisdom

I’m always on the lookout for catchy titles, so of course Crappy People Vs. Crappy Systems caught my eye.

This tendency to look for individual goats — and heroes —  isn’t just a problem that permeates the world of sports. It is reflected in many misguided ideologies and management practices, which focus excessive energy on hiring stars and weeding-out mediocre and poor performers, and insufficient energy on building a great system that enables most competent people to succeed.

While I don’t disagree (I’m one with the idea that systems matter), there are some people who are, well, crappy workers and simply aren’t going to work in any system that works for most other people. And no, I’m not going to name names, but we’ve all worked with people who in fact lower total production because they get little or nothing done themselves and cause their co-workers to spend time and effort to fix the crappy workers mistakes.

But I think Mr. Sutton is entirely correct that systems have much more impact on workers than workers on systems, so companies are better off perfecting the system than trying to find the perfect worker. I’m reminded how Enron was big on finding stars and we all know how that turned out.

On The Other Hand, A Sock

This could be an interesting article, if it were written in english, and not academicese:

There is growing evidence that consumers are influenced by Internet-based opinion forums before making a variety of purchase decisions. Firms whose products are being discussed in such forums are therefore tempted to manipulate consumer perceptions by posting costly anonymous messages that praise their products. This paper offers a theoretical analysis of the impact of such behavior on firm profits and consumer surplus. There are three main results. First, if every firm’s manipulation strategy is a monotonically increasing (decreasing) function of that firm’s true quality, strategic manipulation of online forums increases (decreases) the information value of a forum to consumers. This result implies the existence of settings where online forum manipulation benefits consumers. Second, equilibria where strategies are monotonically increasing (decreasing) functions of a firm’s true quality exist in settings where the firm’s net payoff function, inclusive of the cost of manipulation, is supermodular (submodular) in the firm’s quality and manipulation action. Third, in a broad class of settings, if the precision of honest consumer opinions that firms manipulate is sufficiently high, firms of all types, as well as society, would be strictly better off if manipulation of online forums was not possible. Nonetheless, firms are locked into a “rat race” and forced to spend resources on such profit-reducing activities; if they don’t, consumer perceptions will be biased against them. The social cost of online manipulation can be reduced by developing “filtering” technologies that make it costlier for firms to manipulate. Interestingly, as the amount of user-contributed online content increases, it is firms, and not consumers, that have most to gain from the development of such technologies.

Did you catch that? Yea, me neither. Other than that part about companies using sock puppets to better their reputations. I just have to ask the Dr. Phil question of other people who have used sock puppets — how’s that working out for you? I wonder if the model took into consideration the effect on consumer opinion when the sock is publicly removed from the company’s hand.

I also catch more than a wiff of the two handed economist here – on the one hand, company sock puppets could decrease the information value of a forum to consumers, and the other hand, they could benefit consumers. OK Einstein, just what are the “settings” that benefit consumers.

I think companies would be better off the old fashioned way, that is, (1) focus on doing a good job over the entire lifecycle of their product/service, and (2) use clearly identified spokespeople in forums who are (a) honest and (b) engaging. Sock puppets are for losers.

Tags:

A Little Economic Reading

I just finished reading The Elusive Quest For Growth and The Undercover Economist and I have to give a two thumbs up recommendation for both.

The Elusive Quest For Growth chronicles the attempts over the years to get poor countries to grow economically. It makes for depressing reading, but at leasts confirms my opinion that bad government is the number one problem for developing countries. Sadly, knowing that doesn’t make the problem easier, because how do you change the incentives that make everyone’s best interest to steal now to incentives that make everyone’s best interest to, well, obey property laws or put another way, to take money now versus to provide something in return for money later?

The Undercover Economist is an excellent primer in economic thinking and covers a lot of ground. Mr Harford provides clear explanations by first starting with familiar situations and then scaling them up to more general or important ones. My only sour note was in the brief discussion of used cars – the way I see dealers getting around the assymetric information problem is through warantees – by standing behind every car they sell — and not on spending money on buildings to indicate they will be around later (at least in the US).

If I had books like this to read back in my econ 101 days instead of dry academic textbooks, maybe it wouldn’t have taken so long for me to discover the joys of economics.

What Is A Fair Price?

I know a lot of us view the gyrations of the price of a gallon of gas with a mixture of suspicion and alarm — and yes, a feeling of unfairness. Researchers from the University of South Carolina examined the perception of fairness and dynamic pricing and came to an unstartling understanding:

Consumers have higher fairness perceptions and satisfaction regardless of the price level when they play a role in the price setting process rather than when prices are set by the retailer,” the researchers explain. Additionally, “consumers view price changes within very short time periods as more unfair than changes over a more extended time period.”

Additionally, people find it unfair to pay a different price than others (I’m thinking airlines here). But do these factors really determine a “fair” price, or just the perception of one? Clearly, these are factors you can look at when you don’t have visibility into the real factors that go into price, i.e. supply and demand.

Tags:

Lost In Translation

Here’s my problem, when I hear the phrase “common good” I think “tragedy of the commons”.

Perhaps my problem is that I’ve found I like economics outside the academic setting, where I found it boring and repulsive.

Tags: ,

Dobson, Seipp, and HPV Vaccination

Cathy Seipp is a smart person, so why does she her analysis of the response to an HPV vaccine stumble so badly?

First off, she claims that certain religious fanatics are attacking the new vaccine for HPV:

One of the first things I had my 17-year-old daughter do when she began college this fall was make an appointment to get the new anti-HPV (for “Human Papillomavirus”) vaccine at the university’s student health center. HPV is the sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer, and the new vaccine (which in my view should only be celebrated, as should all medical progress) has been attacked by religious fanatics almost as soon as it was introduced. “Why, this will only encourage young girls to have sex!” Or so that kind of thinking goes — if you can even call it “thinking.”

OK, what is Focus on the Family’s position? Oddly enough, they have a .pdf position statement on their web site:

Recognizing the worldwide detriment to individuals and families resulting from HPV, Focus on the Family supports and encourages the development of safe, effective and ethical vaccines against HPV, as well as other viruses. The use of these vaccines may prevent many cases of cervical cancer, thus saving the lives of millions of women across the globe. Therefore, Focus on the Family supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public school. The decision of whether to vaccinate a minor against this or other sexually transmitted infections should remain with the child’s parent or guardian. As in all areas of sexual health and education, Focus on the Family upholds parents’ right to be the primary decision maker and educator for their children. The use of these vaccines should involve informed consent for parents as well as education for both parents and youth regarding the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine. In making this decision, parents should consider the following:
* No vaccine is 100% effective against disease;
* There are more than one hundred sub-types of HPV and the current vaccines being tested are effective against, at most, four of these;
* The sub-types of the virus that these vaccines protect against are the cause of most but not all cases of cervical cancer;
* The possibility of HPV infection resulting from sexual assault, including date rape;
* The possibility that young persons may marry someone previously exposed to and still carrying the virus;
* The HPV vaccines do not protect against other STIs or prevent pregnancy;
* The HPV vaccines do not, in any circumstance, negate or substitute the best health message of sexual abstinence until marriage and sexual faithfulness after marriage.

Hmm, how about Family Research Council:

The Family Research Council welcomes the news that vaccines are in development for preventing infection with certain strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV). We also welcome the reports, like those we’ve heard this morning, of promising clinical trials for such a vaccine. Forms of primary prevention and medical advances in this area hold potential for helping to protect the health of millions of Americans and helping to preserve the lives of thousands of American women who currently die of cervical cancer each year as a result of HPV infection. Media reports suggesting that the Family Research Council opposes all development or distribution of such vaccines are false….

We will also continue to take an interest in the activities of the pharmaceutical companies, the federal and state governments, and of the medical community, as vaccines for HPV are approved, recommendations for their use are developed, and their use is implemented. In particular, we encourage follow-up studies to determine whether use of the vaccine has any impact on sexual behavior and its correlates, such as rates of other sexually transmitted diseases or rates of pregnancy.

We are particularly concerned with insuring that medically accurate information regarding the benefits and limitations of an HPV vaccine is distributed to public health officials, physicians, patients, and the parents of minor patients. It is especially important for those parties to understand that such a vaccine:

* will not prevent transmission of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases, of which there are many;

* will not prevent infection with other strains of HPV, of which there are also many;

* will not prevent infection with all of the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer;

* and lastly, will not eliminate the need for regular screening.

We recognize that the most current immunological studies suggest that these vaccines would be most effective in pre-adolescents. Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to twelve-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. Care must be taken not to communicate that such an intervention makes all sex “safe.” We strongly encourage the health care community to clearly communicate the medically accurate fact that only abstaining from sexual contact with infected individuals can fully protect someone from the wide range of sexually transmitted diseases.

However, we also recognize that HPV infection can result from sexual abuse or assault, and that a person may marry someone still carrying the virus. These provide strong reasons why even someone practicing abstinence and fidelity may benefit from HPV vaccines.

Because parents have an inherent right to be the primary educator and decision maker regarding their children’s health, we would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination or to coerce parents into authorizing it. Because the cancer-causing strains of HPV are not transmitted through casual contact, there is no justification for any vaccination mandate as a condition of public school attendance. However, we do support the widespread distribution and use of vaccines against HPV.

Vaccination at the beginning of adolescence may provide a unique opportunity for both health care providers and parents to discuss with young people the full range of issues related to sexual health. We would encourage this committee to recommend that policy-making bodies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, should develop and formalize clinical counseling interventions directed toward sexual risk elimination strategies for pre-adolescents. Such strategies could be incorporated into anticipatory guidance protocols. Such a strategy would also mirror the risk elimination messages presented to adolescents regarding tobacco, alcohol, and drug usage, and youth violence prevention. This risk elimination message is the best form of primary prevention youth can receive.

Both health care providers and parents should reinforce the fact that limiting sexual activity to the context of one faithful and monogamous long-term relationship is the single most effective method of preventing all sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancies, and the whole range of negative psychological and social consequences that can result from sexual activity outside marriage.

OK, how about Jerry Falwell? Silent on the issue.

National Abstinence Clearinghouse? OK, I admit I’m not a member and don’t want to join so I can’t actually see what’s in their resource library, but here are some titles:

07.05.2006 More on HPV and Condoms
06.29.2006 HPV Vaccine: How Much Will it Cost?
06.21.2006 HPV Vaccine: Progress, But the Battle’s Not Over Against HPV
05.24.2006 HPV Vaccine Clears FDA Hurdle
04.26.2006 Data from Eight Collected Studies Shows Enormous Risk of Cervical Cancer from HPV
04.07.2006 New Way to Encourage Someone to Test for STD
04.05.2006 Teens and STDs: A New Message for a Healthy Millennium

Call me crazy, but it strikes me that they are in line with Focus on the Family, not opposed, and I’m assuming their position is best summed up by “HPV Vaccine: Progress, But the Battle’s Not Over Against HPV”.

Now perhaps these organizations have all moderated their opposition after the FDA approved it and I’m (admittedly) late to the party. But that isn’t what is claimed. Now to be sure there may be some people out there actually flat out opposed to the HPV vaccine who are Christians, but I’m sure not seeing some movement by any influential organization.

But it doesn’t end there. Ms. Seipp continues:

This naturally brought out all the true believers in hordes — many of whom insisted that my comparison of vaccines that prevent disease to locked doors that prevent burglars is wrong, wrong, wrong. I don’t see why. Some of these people insist the analogy is flawed because airbags and seatbelts encourage people to drive more recklessly, not less.But while it’s true there are some studies that indicate improved safety features in cars do make some people feel inoculated against road hazards and so more likely to speed, what about people like me? I never speed and haven’t had a traffic ticket in 26 years — pretty much what you’d expect from a typical Volvo-driving fuddy-duddy…whose seatbelts always fastened, and whose car has airbags.

It’s true my analogy about burglars and disease may be imperfect, but it’s nevertheless essentially true. One person, for instance, said I should have used the example of theft insurance instead of locked doors. But I don’t see why. Vaccinating against disease and locking your doors against burglars both recognize that we live in a world where bad things can happen even if we don’t deserve them. Recognizing that fact no more encourages promiscuity than locked doors encourages burglary; both are simply precautions.

Now let’s take up the question of whether or not reducing the risk associated with a behavior increases the incidence of said behavior. That is the what is claimed again by Ms. Seipp as the religious fanatic’s objection to this vaccine.

So her analogy is that since locking your doors at night doesn’t encourage burglars, making sex less risky won’t encourage sex. There are two problems that make her analogy a non-sequitor. The original is about how your ability to lower the risk of your behavior to yourself encourages you to do more of that behavior. The analogy is about how your ability to (1) increase the risk of (2) someone else’s behavior doesn’t encourage them. Gee, when you get to stand the other person’s points on their heads, you can easily refute them.

Now a reader tries to rescue her “One person, for instance, said I should have used the example of theft insurance instead of locked doors. But I don’t see why.” Here’s why: the analogy becomes just because you have theft insurance [lower the risk] you don’t stop locking your doors at night [risky behavior]. The reason you should use it is that it actually conforms to the logic of the objection. I have to admit I don’t have data, but I’d say there are more people who would take less precautions with their property knowing they would be paid for a loss than there are who would take more.

But I don’ have to think too hard about this, because we already have data about this very effect, and Ms. Seipp cites it – anti-lock brakes and airbags have made people feel safer, so we have engaged in riskier driving behavior to the point we are no safer, and even less safe than before. So we have valid evidence that low and behold, if you lower the risk of a certain behavior, people will do more of it.

And how does Ms. Seipp respond to actual real hard data? Anecdote. Hey I own a safe car and I don’t engage in risky behavior. OK, what does that have to do with the measurement of real behavior by real people? Yep, none.

As far as Ms. Seipp’s analogy, how about we ask the question, if burglars were given a “get out of jail free” card that really worked, even if only once, would they commit more or less burglary? I don’t have to think too hard about that one.

But one has to ask, so what? As far as I can tell, what Focus on the Family and Family Research Council are warning against is a false sense of security – that is they don’t want the message to be that because of this vaccine, sex has been rendered safe and complication free. Kind of like, just because you lock the front door everynight, don’t think you can’t be burglarized.

A better response would be that given all of the factors that go into becoming sexually active, the risk of HPV is pretty far down the list and is just not very significant, and that the risk that young girls would misjudge and take this vaccine as a license for risk free sex could be overcome through the proper education — which sound a lot like the positions take by those religious fanatics at FOTF and FRC.

So what did I learn from reading Ms. Seipp in this case? Nothing about so called religious fanatics. But I did learn that even smart, reliable people goof: they don’t accurately represent other people’s positions, they don’t reason well, they dismiss data if it disagrees with their opinion, and in general can just go off half-cocked. And yes, I’m sure if you were a glutton for punishment and went through my archives you could find similar problems from time to time.

Tags: ,