just hypocrisy
I've heard that in improv theatre there's an axiom of 'yes, and' meaning that in order to keep the energy of a scene going, players [the actors] must to play off each others suggestions in an additive way in order to maintain forward momentum. Part of this means they do their best to avoid terms like "no," "but," and 'just' which is limiting.
so yes, in the sense that it was all for 'show,' maybe the house was a bit hypocritical, or a lie, or maybe at least misrepresented. And it also was an exemplar, a specific extant permutation of an undefined and shifting set of possible 'investments.'
If it was not the 'ideal' permutation, It was at least one that presented itself and checked several boxes, even if it was likely to also come with a side of buyers remorse.