Many advisors are actively engaged in dialogue with clients about the market ups and downs of the past month.

Part of your conversation will typically focus on putting the decline we've seen in historical context - an important priority, since good advisors provide perspective as part of their role. And there's lots of statistical data on the magnitude, duration and time to recover from past downturns to help reassure investors. Especially for more analytical, numbers driven clients, I'd encourage you to use the charts and graphs which your firm provides or which are available from sources such as Jeremy Siegel's Stocks for the Long Run or Ibbotson's Stocks, Bonds, Bills and Inflation yearbook.

At the same time, I would caution you against using parallels which clients view as lacking balance and which risk undermining your credibility - anything smacking even slightly of a "sales pitch" risks positioning you as a "salesperson" rather than an objective professional.

Here are a couple of examples of potentially troublesome tactics.

Every advisor (and many clients) have heard the "stocks on sale"analogy - when GAP or Future Shop have a sale, people stand in line and flock to buy, but when stocks are down 15%, many investors avoid them like the plague.

Here's the difficulty with this analogy: A common response from investors is that when Future Shop has a sale, they know what the regular price of the item is and that prices will be back to normal the day after the sale ends. They don't have any such assurance when it comes to stocks - and many still bear the scars from Nortel and other tech boom darlings as proof of that.

Another frequently used argument is the devastating impact of "missing the best days" - whether it be the best 10, 20 or 60 days - as a warning about being out of the market.

When walked through this argument, the typical response by investors is "that's all fine and good, but what's the impact of missing the WORST sixty days?".

This is not to say that messages about buying when valuations are depressed or staying invested aren't the right ones - but advisors have to be extremely cautious about using evidence for these messages which contradicts your image as a source of objective advice. Being seen as even a little bit self serving or unbalanced in the counsel you provide can plant a seed of doubt in your clients' minds and undermine your positioning as a trusted professional who puts clients' needs first.

In my next post on Monday, I'll talk about the kind of evidence that enhances your credibility with clients.