Comments on: Straining Credulity on Identity Theft Costs http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/08/straining-credulity-on-identity-theft.html Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:09:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Yves Smith http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/08/straining-credulity-on-identity-theft.html#comment-485 Yves Smith Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:32:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/08/straining-credulity-on-identity-theft-costs/#comment-485 Apparently Bruce is unaware of the fact that I had extensive e-mail discussions with one Luke Abernall of his company, have reviewed the study methodology, provided two rounds of extensive comments to Luke, and have gotten no reply to my latest message, in which listed a very detailed list of problems in their approach.<br/><br/>I also said I would be happy to look at the details of how they did certain adjustments to their data to see if I was comfortable with their methodology, but all I got was dead silence.<br/><br/>Just one specific that won't be too gory for readers. Javelin changed its methodology to ask respondents to put their estimates of losses into ranges. Before they had open-ended questions. Anyone who knows anything about cognitive bias knows that introducing numbers when asking people to make estimates HOPELESSLY skews the results. It's a problem well known and well documented experimentally in behavioral finance called anchoring. And interestingly, the trend line of results changed the very year they made this change. Now correlation is not causation, but it it troubling nevertheless.<br/><br/>I also note that Bruce engages in an ad hominem attack. He chooses to imply that I don't understand survey and statistical research without specifically refuting my points, and without inquiring into my experience or training. This is a logical fallacy. Not a good sign from someone who chooses to wrap himself in a mantle of rigor. Apparently Bruce is unaware of the fact that I had extensive e-mail discussions with one Luke Abernall of his company, have reviewed the study methodology, provided two rounds of extensive comments to Luke, and have gotten no reply to my latest message, in which listed a very detailed list of problems in their approach.

I also said I would be happy to look at the details of how they did certain adjustments to their data to see if I was comfortable with their methodology, but all I got was dead silence.

Just one specific that won’t be too gory for readers. Javelin changed its methodology to ask respondents to put their estimates of losses into ranges. Before they had open-ended questions. Anyone who knows anything about cognitive bias knows that introducing numbers when asking people to make estimates HOPELESSLY skews the results. It’s a problem well known and well documented experimentally in behavioral finance called anchoring. And interestingly, the trend line of results changed the very year they made this change. Now correlation is not causation, but it it troubling nevertheless.

I also note that Bruce engages in an ad hominem attack. He chooses to imply that I don’t understand survey and statistical research without specifically refuting my points, and without inquiring into my experience or training. This is a logical fallacy. Not a good sign from someone who chooses to wrap himself in a mantle of rigor.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/08/straining-credulity-on-identity-theft.html#comment-481 Anonymous Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:07:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/08/straining-credulity-on-identity-theft-costs/#comment-481 August 21, 2007 | written by Bruce Cundiff <br/><br/>Naked capitalism — the emperor has no clothes…no seriously<br/><br/>Saw this blog today (I was a first time visitor), questioning the research methodology for our ID Fraud survey. In the end, I had to laugh…oh the irony. <br/><br/>The kicker in this is that the blogger is inherently questioning our research findings point blank (I especially liked the part where he referred to them as “patently ridiculous”) without any knowledge or understanding of our research methodology. <br/><br/>I’ve got no problem whatsoever discussing, defending, and debating our research. It’s what we do, and it’s what we do well. If someone has a problem with our findings (and people do..no bones about that), they should at least give us the courtesy of actually reviewing the methodology before spouting “patently ridiculous” platitudes and the like. Oh wait…that might take some effort. <br/><br/>I’m likely overreacting, but I take my work seriously. It’s blatantly obvious that the blogger has a preconceived notion about ID Fraud trends, and no amount of rigorously gathered data and analysis behind that data is going to sway that notion.<br/><br/>I guess I can take solace in the fact that said blogger is not in charge of risk an fraud mitigation at my bank (or any bank that I might have invested in…). Otherwise I would have to question the way the bank is handling its ID fraud issues. August 21, 2007 | written by Bruce Cundiff

Naked capitalism — the emperor has no clothes…no seriously

Saw this blog today (I was a first time visitor), questioning the research methodology for our ID Fraud survey. In the end, I had to laugh…oh the irony.

The kicker in this is that the blogger is inherently questioning our research findings point blank (I especially liked the part where he referred to them as “patently ridiculous”) without any knowledge or understanding of our research methodology.

I’ve got no problem whatsoever discussing, defending, and debating our research. It’s what we do, and it’s what we do well. If someone has a problem with our findings (and people do..no bones about that), they should at least give us the courtesy of actually reviewing the methodology before spouting “patently ridiculous” platitudes and the like. Oh wait…that might take some effort.

I’m likely overreacting, but I take my work seriously. It’s blatantly obvious that the blogger has a preconceived notion about ID Fraud trends, and no amount of rigorously gathered data and analysis behind that data is going to sway that notion.

I guess I can take solace in the fact that said blogger is not in charge of risk an fraud mitigation at my bank (or any bank that I might have invested in…). Otherwise I would have to question the way the bank is handling its ID fraud issues.

]]>