NBR, how about publishing the suspect questions, so we can make our minds up? This "article" is of no value without some facts.

I am one of the poor sods that believed the written word of my investment advisor when he told me this product was as a good alternative to term deposits/ fixed interest. He knew I was risk averse, was not greedy and above all else wanted to preserve my capital. How can he, down there on the corner in the deep south, and ING, even consider for one moment that poor suckers that we investors have been, will shut up and go away with the miserable offer of 65 cents in the dollar... what a joke. All monies should be returned in full and a penalty rate of ten percent interest paid immediately. I for one will be uplifting all my other business with ING, ANZ and some of these investments have been under the ING banner since day one. Come on the rest of you, get out your pens, and start writing! You worked hard for your money so now its time to work just a little bit more to try to preserve what should be returned to you in full, with compensation!!!

One of the reasons we are being treated so badly is because ING can do this. We are such a small country at the bottom of the world and ING know they can treat us badly and get away with it.

I support R Brown wholeheartedly my sentiments absolutely, i have heard that some investors have been asked for their comments on reducing the 5 yrs to 3 years. Is this still ING/ANZ trying to get off the hook on paying back their investors their initial investment?

Should we be directing or copying our correspondense direct to the head office of ING in Holland. If so what is the contact address. At this stage the only information received by their head office could be a one sided view from their NZ managers and obscure the depth of resentment with the company in NZ..

I also query the 'not frozen' funds. Going back through a few Unit Price (latest 'exit' price) emailed documents I see the 'exit price' for the DYF at 14/5/08 was $.7259, 24/9/08 was $.622 & yesterday 10/3/09 is $.2554 !!! How can this happen when (as stated in my financial plan).. 'the fund invests in a diverse portfolio of high-yielding international and NZ interest rate securities'... also that 'the DYF will provide a different style of bond investing and potentially reduce the overall volatility of interest rate changes'.

Getting the offer out as fast as can has to do with ANZ's financial accounts and ensuring they have provided for whatever loss or hit they are prepared to take - so that amount can be set aside in the provisioning.

Hi Anon - my name is Duncan Stuart the independent market researcher who has managed the ING survey. If you'd like to contact me duncan@kudos-dynamics.com I can explain how researchers are permitted under the Privacy Act to contact customers - who are of course free to take part or otherwise in the survey.

When the Privacy Act was drafted in the 1990s the role of research was discussed at length by the elected committee, and it was accepted that information is a tacit part of an efficient economy: hence the role of research is permitted.

However, that said, we keep the identity of respondents anonymous, and likewise, do not pass on any names we've contacted to any third party.

In no way was our research designed to sell anything or as you suggest "inform" (i.e. push) any point of view. That's not what research is about.

I am sure you are a very worthwhile sort of chap Duncan, but your missives look very like damage control to me

Me though, I found your stories fascinating

Context is indeed important Duncan. I think a short summary of the context in which you accepted to work as ING’s proxy agent may be instructive.

This is a context where ING advised 8,000 customers in December 2007 – when the Funds began to lose value – “If you withdraw now, you will make paper losses into real losses and miss out on the upside which comes as markets recover.”

This a context where – when customers began to mistrust ING’s advice – ING hired an independent researcher (Morningstar Research Ltd) who informed customers on 29 February 2008 that the drop in value was “an over exaggeration” and recommended “to sit tight for now’.

A few days later ING froze the Funds. (Quite possibly, the independent researcher was not informed of this pending decision.)

This is a context where people saw their Funds lose 60-70% of the value, after ING’s CEO assured the customers on 12 March 2008: “We do not believe your money is in danger”.

This is context where ING turns around in December and, without apology, announces they want to close the Funds and offer customers a loan of 15 cents per invested dollar.

This is a context where, late 2008, the Commerce Commission opens an official investigation into ING’s marketing practices and duly informs ING. Nevertheless, ING unashamedly writes to its business partners on 27 January “we have not received any formal notification from the Commission that a formal investigation is underway”.

This is a context where ING also writes on 27 January to its business partners that they are “preparing a different response to this type of [negative] media”.

This is the context, then, Duncan, where you have decided to step in for ING and start phoning people and claim you are doing “independent research” for ING, while heaping praise on ING like: “to their enormous credit” (pun intended).

This is also the context where ING does not want you to release the questions to the people you have just interviewed. (I have been in contact with you about this and appreciate you asked ING.)

It is because of this context that I suspect you are simply part what ING announced in January as “plans to promote the managed wind-up proposal”.

(Of course, it’s quite possible that ING has not fully informed you of the context. If you would have second thoughts about ING as your business partner, you are in good company. The Medical Assurance Society recently cancelled its $180m contract with ING “over concerns about the transparency of its investments” (NBR, 24-02-09). Many financial advisors “currently associated with ING” are considering moving elsewhere (GR, 25-02-09). Hey, even ANZ has ceased to heap praise on its partner, noting lukewarm that ING’s 2nd proposal “has merit” (ANZ, 27-02-09).

Gerard, sometimes the process of listening is simply that: the process of listening. You can twist it, lampoon it, snarl at it - but in the end listening is listening. It is not a dishonorable activity despite you trying to position it that way.

If any respondents in the survey have had an issue with ING, then we have heard that voice loud and clear - not just in number form, but by asking people to express their thoughts in their actual words.

Likewise, if people - having been told that ING had commissioned the survey - felt unhappy to take part, then that was their prerogative. Nobody was taken advantage of in the process.

You feel that working for a client impinges on my independence as a researcher. Well, I'm a bit more professional than you have implied. And I will continue to reply to negative blogs about research in this medium so long as anyone unfairly attacks my professionalism.

If necessary I'll tell you dozens of stories from my research experience - maybe hundreds. And if you really get my back up I'll do it with pie charts and PowerPoint.

Wow, I think maybe I should start a public blog or something so we can get all the people discuss about this issue by writing articles, sharing stories, and of course leaving comments!!!

I got a letter from ING today. Can I say their letter (second paragraph) is as misleading as the survey?

Quote
"Thank you to all those investors who have provided us with their feedback on the proposal.... This feedback has been largely positive...."

So what? Am I supposed to think that, "Okay, now that most other investors are happy with the proposal... alright, may be I should perhaps just let go?? Maybe??"

I personally felt that ING and ANZ are pushing it down our throats.

And one question for Duncan, I thought Gerard wrote very well about the importance of context. DO you actually realize about those context? Yes, you are a senior researcher, almost like a senior lawyer, you can still twist things around and still get away with the rules etc. But how about ethic?

I've not before had any market research prject of mine under attack and found this experience both frustrating and somewhat time-wasting.

For the record, Gerard Prinsen and I had at least two convivial conversations as a result of his taking part in the research survey conducted on behalf of ING. He let me know that he would be taking public issue with the research for two reasons: to get a copy of the questionnaire (in order to second guess what ING might be thinking) and secondly to continue the public criticism of ING - as part of the campaign of the Frozen Funds Group. In terms of the research he did in three ways.

First; he went to the media basically informing them that ING had been doing this survey. (We have been doing surveys for many years for ING.) He insinuated - as the NBR story suggests - that the survey was somehow suspicious. Well it wasn't suspicious was it? It is quite standard for an organisation to listen to the marketplace and gauge the depth of sentiment. He went to several media, and they didn't show much interest to be honest: a problem we face as market researchers. We're not a sexy profession, so when we do our job it seldom grabs the headlines.

Second he went to the Privacy Commission demanding a transcript of the the interview between our field house and himself. To verify that we had recorded his views towards ING. We duly did so - the first time anyone in my profession can recall anyone wanting a record of the survey in which they willingly took part. But on this basis Gerard claimed in the Frozen Funds newsletter that the research had been "subject to a complaint to the Privacy Commission." Deep insinuation indeed!

Thirdly Gerard complained to the Market Research Society of NZ about the research. He listed a whole plethora of complaints - one being that the research had brought my profession into disrepute (he argued this on the basis of the number of blogs right here on this NBR page.) Another complaint was that I am a dangerous individual - (or something to that effect) on the basis that I work with a colleague, mentioned on my website, who cited an article by a customer service expert who refers to upset or angry customers as "consumer terrorists" - ie those who make hell for the life of those who upset them. Not a bad metaphor, but Gerard chose to take it literally.

I was not surprised to find that the complaints committee - who have certainly been known in the past to uphold complaints - could find no merit in Gerard's various accusations.

I'm left somewhat drained by the experience for two reasons. First, I know the complainant was wearing his activist hat (one I've worn myself on occasion) so i could sympathise with what he was doing on the basis of his feelings and his situation. But knowing you're getting slagged publicly as part of a pro-forma protest does not reduce the sense of aggravation.

Further, I was aggravated by the fact that ill-informed or mischievous comment about market research in general, and my own projects in particular might be promulgated by the likes of Katie (above) who chose to claim that as part of my work I "twist things around" and perhaps have no idea of ethics.

Well we live in a world where blogs are open, and opinions are easy to put on record - but one side effect is that the reputations of individuals can be attacked by absolute strangers who are totally uninformed of who or what they're choosing to criticise.

I bear Gerard no malice, and wish him success going forward. But may I point out the extensive work of Robert Axelrod et al who have examined the different social strategies of people (attack others, co-operation, recipricosity etc see his papers: www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/ ) and found that co-operation, an assumption that others are benign rather than negative, and a willingness to attack only if provoked - is the most successful formula in a society.

I feel the obverse strategies were adopted here - a disbelief in others and a willingness to attack without provocation.

The net result if we were all to adopt these strategies would be an intensely negative society!

Duncan Stuart 09 366 0620