Skip to main content

Sound Advice: May 1, 2024

THINK TWICE ABOUT BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU RATINGS

 

Although it might be comforting to believe that ratings from the Better Business Bureau are reliable, people would be best advised to avoid betting the ranch on same.  Indeed, there are more than a few reasons not to rely solely on those ratings.

Contrary to popular belief, BBB ratings do not measure how good a business is.  Instead, they are supposed to measure how likely a business is to respond to its customers.

The key factors ostensibly underlying the ratings are things such as complaint history, type of business, time in business, transparency of business practices, willingness to uphold BBB standards, licensing, and advertising.  If, for example, a license is required, but the business is not licensed, the rating would drop.  Similarly, use of the BBB logo without permission from the BBB is a no-no.

But there’s more and that’s often the key.  Although the BBB presents itself as a nonprofit organization, it still needs money to operate.  That’s where accreditation comes in.  One of the ways the BBB earns its money is by charging businesses to be accredited.  If the business is accredited, it can use the BBB’s accreditation logo and customers may view the company as more trustworthy.

Even so, back in 2015, CNN Money found a sample of more than 100 businesses that had ratings of A- or higher despite having serious actions taken against them by government regulators.  Some had been ruled flat-out scams and were shut down, but still kept their high BBB grade.  Some were required to pay multimillion dollar penalties and others were charged in government lawsuits.

It seems clear that BBB ratings can be questioned for a number of reasons.  These would include subjectivity, the role of pay to play, and limited information about the companies.  The reality is that the ratings provided can vary and may not align with what consumers consider important.

Alternatively, one might consider the burgeoning number of ratings available on social media as well as commercial websites.  Here, too, there is a considerable risk, a significant part of which may be attributed to shill ratings (i.e., those posted by paid services or friends of the firm).  In all cases, the best advice is to read between the lines and don’t depend on every note, whether praising or damning.

 

N. Russell Wayne

Weston, CT

Any questions: please contact me at nrwayne@soundasset.com

203-895-8877

www.soundasset.blogspot.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sound Advice: July 16, 2025

Fixed annuities are poor investments Fixed annuities are often criticized as poor investments for several reasons, despite their reputation for providing stable, predictable income.  Here are the key drawbacks and concerns:   High Fees and Commissions Internal Fees:  Fixed annuities can carry a range of fees, including administrative charges, mortality expense risk fees, and rider fees. These can add up to 2%–4% per year, significantly eroding returns over time. Commissions:  Sales agents and financial advisors often receive high commissions for selling annuities—sometimes as much as 5%–8% of the invested amount. This creates a financial incentive for advisers to recommend them, even when they may not be the best fit for the client. Comparison to Other Investments:  Mutual funds and ETFs typically have much lower fees and commissions, making them more cost-effective for long-term growth. Limited Growth a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: October 8, 2025

How many investors have outperformed the stock market over the last 20 years? Very few investors have outperformed the stock market over the past 20 years.   Data shows that only about 6% to 8% of actively managed equity funds in the U.S. beat the market over this period, with the vast majority—over 90%—underperforming the S&P 500 or equivalent broad indexes. Percentage of Investors Beating the Market Only 8% of equity funds investing in large companies managed to outperform the market over a recent 20-year span. About 94% of all domestic funds underperformed the S&P 1500 Composite Index from 2005-2024. Over shorter timeframes (5-10 years), typically fewer than 15-20% of fund managers beat the S&P 500, and performance persistence is rare. Why It Is Rare The S&P 500’s high returns have proven immensely difficult to beat, especially as indexing has become popular and markets have ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: November 10, 2025

The stock market indexes seem to be dominated by a handful of tech stocks, but how is the average stock doing? As of late October/early November 2025, the S&P 500 index excluding the Magnificent Seven stocks (the "Other 493") has delivered a modest year-to-date return of approximately 5.3% to 5.4%. That’s barely more than one third of the performance of the full, market-capitalization-weighted S&P 500 index, which was up around 15.1% to 16% over the same period.  (The Magnificent Seven stocks are Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla.) Index Concentration and Market Breadth The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index underperformed the standard, cap-weighted S&P 500 by about 12% in 2024, reflecting the gap between the top performing giants and the rest of the market. Only sectors like utilities, industrials, real estate, and energy outperformed their cap-weighted peers, while tech and consumer-focused sectors were ...
Post a Comment
Read more