Close Menu

    FMB Methodology

    A repeatable process for testing financial advice.

    FinanceMythBusters examines commonly repeated financial claims by defining the exact question, reviewing credible evidence, making assumptions visible, modeling possible outcomes, and identifying the tradeoffs that generic advice often ignores. The goal is not to force every question into a simple yes or no—it is to reach a clear conclusion that matches the evidence.

    Test the Exact Claim Define what is actually being claimed before evaluating it.
    Follow the Evidence Give greater weight to relevant and authoritative sources.
    Show the Tradeoffs Explain when the answer changes and what may be sacrificed.
    See the Full Framework Explore Money Myths

    Step 1 — Define the Claim

    Start with the exact advice being tested.

    Broad financial statements often sound convincing because they leave out the details that could prove them wrong. Before FMB evaluates a myth, the advice is rewritten as a specific, testable claim with a defined audience, decision, timeframe, and expected outcome.

    From Popular Advice to Testable Claim

    Precision changes the quality of the answer

    FMB narrows vague advice until the evidence, assumptions, and financial consequences can be meaningfully evaluated.

    Example 01
    Too broad

    Renting is always a waste of money.

    Testable claim

    A high-income household planning to remain in the same city for at least seven years will always build more wealth by buying a home than by renting and investing the difference.

    Example 02
    Too broad

    You should always max out your 401(k).

    Testable claim

    A high earner should prioritize reaching the annual workplace retirement-plan contribution limit before directing additional cash toward taxable investing, debt repayment, or near-term financial goals.

    Example 03
    Too broad

    A tax refund means you made a mistake.

    Testable claim

    Receiving a federal income-tax refund necessarily means the taxpayer made a financially harmful withholding or estimated-payment decision during the year.

    The analysis must answer the claim that readers were promised.

    The article title, opening question, supporting analysis, and final verdict should all address the same core claim. Important qualifiers may be added, but they should not be used to hide a mismatch between the headline and the evidence.

    • One clearly stated claim
    • A defined audience and timeframe
    • A measurable or explainable outcome
    • A verdict that answers the original question

    Step 2 — Identify the Audience

    Good advice for one household may be costly advice for another.

    A financial recommendation cannot be evaluated without considering who is expected to follow it. FMB identifies the income, tax, household, career, location, and financial circumstances that may determine whether the advice is useful, irrelevant, or potentially harmful.

    Income and compensation

    Salary, bonuses, equity compensation, self-employment income, benefits, and income volatility can materially change priorities.

    Salary RSUs Bonuses

    Tax circumstances

    Filing status, marginal tax rate, state residency, deductions, credits, and business ownership may alter the result.

    Tax bracket State taxes Entity type

    Household obligations

    Dependents, dual incomes, caregiving, education costs, insurance, and shared financial goals affect available flexibility.

    Dependents Childcare Shared goals

    Financial position

    Liquidity, debt, emergency savings, portfolio concentration, insurance coverage, and near-term goals influence suitability.

    Cash reserves Debt Portfolio risk

    Same Advice, Different Households

    The audience can change the conclusion

    Consider the popular advice: “Use every available dollar to maximize retirement contributions before saving elsewhere.”

    Household A

    Strong cash flow and substantial liquidity

    A high-income household with stable employment and no major anticipated cash need.

    • Six months of essential expenses held in cash
    • Stable income from two employers
    • No high-interest consumer debt
    • No major purchase expected soon
    Likely conclusion

    Maximizing tax-advantaged retirement savings may be a reasonable priority.

    Household B

    High income but limited financial flexibility

    A similarly compensated household facing concentrated risks and near-term obligations.

    • Less than one month of expenses in cash
    • Large portion of income tied to volatile equity
    • High-interest revolving debt
    • Major housing or childcare expense expected soon
    Likely conclusion

    Building liquidity or reducing expensive debt may deserve priority before maximizing every contribution.

    The verdict should describe its audience—not pretend to apply universally.

    When the evidence supports different answers for different readers, FMB explains those differences directly. The conclusion should state who is most likely to benefit, which conditions must be present, and what facts may justify a different decision.

    • Define the relevant audience
    • Identify meaningful exceptions
    • Explain who should be cautious
    • Avoid one-size-fits-all conclusions

    Step 3 — Identify the Controlling Rules

    Find the rules that actually govern the decision.

    Financial advice can sound straightforward while depending on several layers of tax law, plan provisions, eligibility requirements and timing rules. FMB identifies which requirements apply, which variables can change the result, and which rule ultimately controls the conclusion.

    Laws and regulations

    Federal and state tax rules, retirement provisions and other regulatory requirements establish what is permitted.

    Tax law Eligibility Compliance

    Limits and thresholds

    Income ranges, annual contribution limits, phaseouts and benefit caps may determine whether a strategy is available.

    Income limits Phaseouts Annual caps

    Plan and product terms

    Employer plans, insurance contracts, loan agreements and account documents may impose additional conditions.

    Plan documents Vesting Account terms

    Timing and jurisdiction

    Tax year, transaction sequence, filing status, residency and deadlines can materially change the financial result.

    Tax year Deadlines State rules

    One strategy, several layers of rules

    A technically available strategy may not produce the expected result.

    Consider the common statement: “A high earner can use a backdoor Roth contribution when direct Roth IRA contributions are unavailable.”

    1. 01
      Eligibility rule Determine whether the person is eligible to make the underlying IRA contribution.

      Compensation, filing status and other requirements may affect whether the first step is available.

    2. 02
      Tax treatment Separate the contribution from the later conversion.

      The contribution and conversion are distinct transactions with separate reporting and tax consequences.

    3. 03
      Existing account balances Identify other pretax IRA assets that may affect the taxable amount.

      Existing balances can change the economics of the strategy even when the transaction itself is allowed.

    4. 04
      Timing and documentation Verify the applicable tax year, transaction sequence and reporting requirements.

      A missed deadline, incomplete form or incorrect assumption about timing may create an unexpected result.

    Methodology conclusion The strategy cannot be evaluated from the income rule alone. Eligibility, existing balances, transaction structure and tax reporting must be considered together.

    The conclusion should identify the rule that controls the answer.

    FMB distinguishes broad principles from binding requirements and explains when exceptions, thresholds or plan-specific provisions may change the result.

    Cite the applicable rule Use the correct period Explain relevant exceptions Separate permission from suitability

    Step 4 — Use the Strongest Available Sources

    Build the answer on evidence—not repetition.

    A financial claim does not become reliable because it appears frequently online. FMB looks for the most authoritative, direct, current, and relevant evidence available, then uses secondary sources to explain context rather than replace the underlying authority.

    Primary authority

    Statutes, regulations, agency guidance, official plan documents and original legal or financial requirements.

    Tax code Regulations Plan terms

    Official data

    Government statistics, regulatory filings and established datasets help test assumptions against measurable outcomes.

    Government data Filings Statistics

    Original research

    Peer-reviewed studies and transparent research can provide evidence about behavior, risk and longer-term financial results.

    Studies Methodology Research data

    Qualified context

    Reputable professional analysis may clarify complexity, implementation issues and legitimate areas of disagreement.

    Expert analysis Context Interpretation

    FMB source hierarchy

    Not every source receives equal weight.

    FMB works from the underlying authority outward. Sources that interpret, summarize or comment on a rule should not silently replace the original rule.

    1. 01 Highest
      weight
      Original laws, regulations and controlling documents

      Used to establish what the rule says, who it applies to and what conditions, limits or exceptions govern it.

      Primary use Establish the controlling requirement
    2. 02 Strong
      support
      Official agency guidance and government publications

      Used to understand administration, reporting, implementation and official interpretations of the rule.

      Primary use Explain how the rule operates
    3. 03 Evidence
      layer
      Original data, research and transparent analysis

      Used to test assumptions about costs, behavior, risk, probability and historical or projected outcomes.

      Primary use Measure the financial consequences
    4. 04 Context
      layer
      Reputable secondary analysis and professional commentary

      Used to identify competing interpretations, practical concerns and questions that require further verification.

      Primary use Add context without replacing authority
    Source hierarchy principle Lower-level sources may help explain an issue, but the conclusion should remain anchored to the strongest relevant evidence available.

    Strong sourcing changes how the analysis is built.

    Consider an article evaluating whether high earners should always prioritize pretax retirement contributions.

    Weak evidence approach

    Start with the conclusion and search for support.

    • Relies mainly on articles repeating that tax deductions are always beneficial.
    • Quotes contribution rules without checking eligibility, plan terms or applicable limits.
    • Uses historical tax assumptions without explaining how future tax treatment may differ.
    • Ignores evidence that liquidity, debt or employer benefits may change the household’s priority.
    FMB evidence approach

    Start with the claim and test each part of it.

    • Confirms the governing contribution, deduction and plan rules.
    • Reviews the household variables that determine the current and future tax tradeoff.
    • Uses transparent assumptions to compare tax savings, liquidity and opportunity cost.
    • States where the available evidence supports the advice, weakens it or leaves the answer uncertain.

    Readers should be able to trace important claims back to their supporting evidence.

    FMB cites material rules, statistics, assumptions and external findings so readers can examine the basis of the analysis and understand where judgment or uncertainty remains.

    Prefer original authority Verify dates and applicability Represent findings accurately Cite the claim being supported

    Step 5 — Make the Assumptions Explicit

    Show what the answer depends on.

    Financial conclusions often appear more certain than the assumptions beneath them. FMB identifies the timeframe, tax rates, costs, expected returns, behavior and household constraints used in the analysis so readers can see what would strengthen, weaken or reverse the result.

    Time horizon

    A strategy that appears favorable over one year may produce a different result over ten, twenty or thirty years.

    Holding period Retirement date Deadlines

    Growth and rates

    Expected investment returns, inflation, borrowing costs and savings yields can materially change the comparison.

    Returns Inflation Interest rates

    Taxes and costs

    Current and future tax rates, transaction expenses, fees and maintenance costs must be included rather than assumed away.

    Tax rates Fees Transaction costs

    Behavior and constraints

    Savings discipline, liquidity needs, job stability and risk tolerance may determine whether a theoretical result is usable.

    Liquidity Risk tolerance Consistency

    Assumption model

    The same comparison can produce different answers.

    Consider the claim: “A homeowner should always invest extra cash instead of paying down a low-rate mortgage.”

    Assumption Conservative Base case Favorable
    Investment return Expected annual return before taxes and fees. 4.0% Lower-growth environment 6.5% Moderate long-term estimate 8.0% Strong market outcome
    Mortgage rate Guaranteed interest avoided by making extra payments. 5.75% Higher guaranteed savings 4.25% Moderate borrowing cost 3.00% Low fixed borrowing cost
    Investment tax drag Taxes and account type may reduce the return retained. 1.25% Taxable, less-efficient portfolio 0.75% Mixed account treatment 0.25% Highly tax-efficient structure
    Liquidity requirement Need for accessible cash before the mortgage ends. High Limited emergency reserves Moderate Stable income and reserves Low Substantial liquid assets
    Investor behavior Whether the household will remain invested consistently. Uncertain May sell during volatility Disciplined Follows a long-term plan Highly disciplined Consistent through market cycles
    What the model reveals Investing may create more expected wealth under favorable assumptions, while mortgage reduction may become more compelling when returns are lower, borrowing costs are higher or the household values certainty over flexibility.

    A strong conclusion explains when it changes.

    The goal is not to select assumptions that produce one preferred answer. The goal is to identify the conditions under which each outcome becomes more reasonable.

    Scenario 01 Certainty favored

    Mortgage reduction becomes stronger.

    The guaranteed return from paying down debt becomes more attractive when the gap between investment returns and the mortgage rate is narrow.

    • Mortgage rate 5.75%
    • After-tax investment return 3.75%
    • Risk tolerance Low
    Likely conclusion Extra principal payments may offer the more reliable financial benefit.
    Scenario 02 Tradeoff remains close

    The decision depends on household priorities.

    When expected investment returns only moderately exceed the mortgage rate, liquidity, taxes and risk tolerance may matter more than the projected difference.

    • Mortgage rate 4.25%
    • After-tax investment return 5.75%
    • Risk tolerance Moderate
    Likely conclusion A blended approach may better preserve flexibility while still reducing debt.
    Scenario 03 Growth favored

    Investing becomes more compelling.

    A low fixed mortgage rate, long time horizon and disciplined investment behavior may create a meaningful expected advantage for investing.

    • Mortgage rate 3.00%
    • After-tax investment return 7.25%
    • Risk tolerance High
    Likely conclusion Investing may offer greater expected long-term wealth, provided the household remains invested.

    Readers should be able to see the assumptions before accepting the conclusion.

    FMB distinguishes known facts from estimates, tests reasonable alternatives and identifies which assumptions have the greatest influence on the result.

    Separate facts from estimates Use supportable assumptions Test multiple scenarios Explain when the verdict changes

    Step 6 — Compare the Full Financial Consequences

    Count what the decision changes—not only what is easiest to measure.

    The highest projected return, largest tax deduction or lowest monthly payment does not automatically identify the best decision. FMB compares the cash-flow effect, taxes, fees, risk, liquidity, flexibility and opportunity cost created by each realistic alternative.

    Cash flow and liquidity

    FMB considers what the decision does to available cash, recurring obligations and the household’s ability to respond to future needs.

    Monthly cash flow Emergency reserves Access to funds

    Taxes and transaction costs

    Upfront taxes, future tax treatment, fees, penalties and implementation costs are included rather than treated as secondary details.

    Current taxes Future taxes Fees

    Risk and concentration

    A strategy’s expected benefit is weighed against market, employment, interest-rate, leverage and concentration risks.

    Volatility Leverage Concentration

    Flexibility and opportunity cost

    FMB examines what the household gives up, which choices remain available and whether the decision is easy or expensive to reverse.

    Alternatives Reversibility Future options

    Full-decision comparison

    One financial event can create several reasonable choices.

    Consider a high-income household receiving a substantial after-tax bonus while holding employer stock, a mortgage and several near-term financial goals.

    Decision factor Invest Reduce debt Preserve cash
    Expected financial benefit What the option may add or save over time. Higher expected growth Potentially greater long-term wealth, but the result is uncertain and market-dependent. Guaranteed interest avoided Produces a predictable benefit equal to the borrowing cost reduced. Lower expected return Cash may grow more slowly but remains available for upcoming obligations.
    Liquidity How easily the money can be accessed later. Marketable investments may remain accessible, although selling during a downturn could lock in a loss. Equity created through debt reduction may be difficult or costly to access. Funds remain readily available for emergencies, purchases or career changes.
    Risk exposure What could cause the expected result to disappoint. Market volatility, behavioral mistakes and additional concentration may weaken the outcome. Reduces leverage and interest-rate exposure but may concentrate more wealth in one property. Protects principal but increases inflation and reinvestment risk over longer periods.
    Tax consequences Current and future taxes created by the option. Account type, dividends, gains and future withdrawals may affect the return retained. The value of any interest deduction and the household’s tax position may affect the true benefit. Interest income may be taxable and reduce the amount earned after tax.
    Opportunity cost What becomes harder after choosing this option. The household gives up the certainty of debt reduction and the stability of additional cash reserves. The household gives up potential investment growth and may reduce access to the money. The household gives up potential market growth and guaranteed interest savings.
    Best fit conditions Circumstances that make the option more reasonable. Long horizon, strong liquidity, diversified holdings and comfort with volatility. Expensive debt, limited risk tolerance or a strong preference for certainty. Near-term obligations, unstable income or inadequate emergency reserves.
    What the comparison reveals The option with the highest projected return may not be the strongest overall choice when taxes, liquidity, risk, concentration and future obligations are considered together.

    Different priorities can justify different conclusions.

    The methodology does not force every household toward the same answer. It identifies which consequences matter most under each set of circumstances.

    Priority 01 Growth

    Maximize expected long-term wealth.

    Investing becomes more persuasive when the household can accept volatility without compromising essential goals.

    • Strong emergency reserves and stable cash flow
    • Long investment horizon and diversified exposure
    • Ability to remain invested during market declines
    Likely conclusion Investing may deserve priority when liquidity and risk capacity are already strong.
    Priority 02 Stability

    Reduce fixed obligations and financial pressure.

    Debt reduction becomes more persuasive when certainty and lower recurring obligations create meaningful household value.

    • Higher borrowing cost or variable-rate exposure
    • Preference for a guaranteed financial benefit
    • Desire to lower required cash flow before retirement or career change
    Likely conclusion Reducing debt may offer greater practical value than a higher but uncertain projected return.
    Priority 03 Flexibility

    Preserve options for an uncertain near-term future.

    Holding additional cash becomes more persuasive when the household expects a major transition or lacks adequate reserves.

    • Near-term housing, childcare or education costs
    • Income tied to bonuses, commissions or volatile equity compensation
    • Possible business launch, relocation or employment change
    Likely conclusion Maintaining liquidity may be more valuable than immediately maximizing return or reducing debt.

    The analysis should compare complete alternatives—not isolated benefits.

    FMB evaluates what each option costs, what it may produce, which risks remain and what future choices the household preserves or gives up.

    Include taxes and fees Measure liquidity effects Identify risks and concentration Explain opportunity cost

    Step 7 — Deliver a Clear, Qualified Verdict

    Answer the question without overstating the evidence.

    The final verdict should tell readers what the analysis supports, who the conclusion applies to and what could change it. FMB uses direct conclusions, meaningful qualifications and evidence-based confidence rather than hiding uncertainty behind vague language or presenting a conditional result as a universal rule.

    Answer the original claim

    The verdict should resolve the same question introduced in the title and tested throughout the analysis.

    Direct answer Claim alignment Clear outcome

    Name the relevant audience

    The conclusion should identify who is most likely to benefit, who should be cautious and which readers may receive a different answer.

    Best fit Exceptions Caution

    Calibrate the confidence

    Strong evidence supports stronger language. Limited, indirect or assumption-sensitive evidence requires a more cautious verdict.

    Evidence strength Uncertainty Confidence

    Explain what could change it

    Readers should know which assumptions, facts, rules or future events are most capable of reversing the conclusion.

    Decision triggers Changing facts Review points

    FMB verdict framework

    The strength of the language should match the strength of the evidence.

    FMB does not force every analysis into a simple yes-or-no conclusion. The verdict reflects how consistently the evidence supports the claim across relevant households and reasonable assumptions.

    1. 01
      Myth The claim is materially false or misleading.

      The available evidence contradicts the central promise, omits a controlling fact or applies only under much narrower conditions than the claim suggests.

      Used when The core claim does not survive the analysis
    2. 02
      Mostly myth The claim contains a valid idea but overstates its reach.

      The recommendation may work in limited circumstances, but important exceptions, tradeoffs or household variables make the general statement unreliable.

      Used when A narrow truth has been presented too broadly
    3. 03
      It depends The answer changes with meaningful facts or assumptions.

      Multiple conclusions remain reasonable because income, taxes, liquidity, risk, timing or personal priorities materially affect the result.

      Used when No single conclusion fits the relevant audience
    4. 04
      Mostly true The claim is directionally sound with important limits.

      The evidence generally supports the advice for the intended audience, but the conclusion requires exceptions, qualifications or implementation safeguards.

      Used when The advice works broadly but not universally
    5. 05
      Supported Strong evidence supports the claim as defined.

      The recommendation remains reasonable across the intended audience, relevant rules and realistic assumptions, with no major omitted tradeoff capable of changing the answer.

      Used when The evidence consistently supports the exact claim
    Verdict principle “It depends” is not an escape from making a decision. A useful verdict explains exactly what it depends on and identifies the conditions that favor each conclusion.

    A useful verdict separates the headline answer from the conditions beneath it.

    Consider the claim: “High earners should always maximize every available retirement contribution before saving elsewhere.”

    Headline verdict

    Mostly myth.

    Tax-advantaged retirement savings can be highly valuable, but income alone does not establish that every available dollar should be committed before other priorities are addressed.

    • The word “always” is not supported.
    • The advice ignores liquidity, debt and near-term obligations.
    • Employer plan quality and tax treatment may vary.
    Core conclusion Retirement maximization is a priority—not an automatic first use of every available dollar.
    Who it fits

    Stronger for financially prepared households.

    The recommendation becomes more persuasive when the household already has sufficient liquidity, manageable debt and no major unfunded short-term obligation.

    • Adequate emergency reserves
    • No expensive revolving debt
    • Stable income and strong cash-flow capacity
    Best-fit audience High earners with strong liquidity and long-term investing capacity may reasonably prioritize additional contributions.
    What changes it

    Other priorities may deserve the next dollar.

    The conclusion weakens when retirement contributions would leave the household exposed to foreseeable expenses, unstable income or expensive debt.

    • Limited cash or volatile compensation
    • High-interest debt or major near-term costs
    • Poor plan options or reduced financial flexibility
    Decision trigger Liquidity, debt reduction or another near-term goal may reasonably take priority before further retirement saving.

    The verdict should be clear enough to use and precise enough to trust.

    FMB states what the evidence supports, identifies the audience, communicates uncertainty and explains which facts are most likely to change the conclusion.

    Answer the original claim Identify who the verdict applies to Match confidence to evidence Explain what could change the answer

    Step 8 — Review, Cite, and Maintain the Analysis

    Publish transparently—and keep the answer current.

    A careful analysis can become unreliable when its citations are unclear, its rules become outdated or a material error remains uncorrected. Before publication, FMB reviews the claim, calculations, sources, assumptions, qualifications and final verdict as one connected argument—and revisits the article when important facts change.

    Pre-publication review

    The article is checked for internal consistency, unsupported statements, calculation errors and conclusions that exceed the evidence.

    Logic Calculations Consistency

    Traceable citations

    Material facts, rules, statistics and external findings are connected to sources readers can examine for themselves.

    Primary sources Links Attribution

    Visible dates and scope

    Publication dates, update dates and applicable tax years help readers understand which rules and assumptions the article uses.

    Published date Updated date Applicable year

    Corrections and updates

    Material errors are corrected, significant changes are disclosed and outdated conclusions are revised when the evidence requires it.

    Corrections Revisions Change history

    FMB article lifecycle

    Publication is a checkpoint—not the end of the methodology.

    Each article moves through a final review before publication and remains subject to revision when rules, evidence or material facts change.

    1. 01
      Argument review Confirm that the evidence supports the exact verdict.

      The final conclusion is checked against the original claim, controlling rules, cited evidence, assumptions and financial tradeoffs presented in the article.

      Review outcome Claim, evidence and verdict remain aligned
    2. 02
      Technical review Recheck calculations, thresholds and rule-based statements.

      Numerical examples, formulas, tax limits, contribution amounts and other technical details are reviewed for the period and circumstances discussed.

      Review outcome Calculations and technical references are verified
    3. 03
      Citation review Confirm that each material citation supports the attached claim.

      Sources are checked for authority, relevance, date, accessibility and fair representation before the article is published.

      Review outcome Readers can trace key claims to supporting evidence
    4. 04
      Clarity review Make the answer understandable without removing important nuance.

      Technical language is translated into plain English while material exceptions, uncertainties and limitations remain visible.

      Review outcome Clear language without false simplicity
    5. 05
      Ongoing maintenance Revisit the article when the underlying answer may have changed.

      New laws, annual limits, major research, corrected data or reader-reported errors may trigger a review, update or correction.

      Review outcome The article reflects material new information
    Maintenance principle An article should not appear current merely because it remains online. The applicable rules, dates and material assumptions must still support the published conclusion.

    Different changes require different editorial responses.

    Not every edit changes the substance of an article. FMB distinguishes routine maintenance from material corrections and full reassessments of the verdict.

    Routine update

    The conclusion remains valid.

    Minor maintenance may improve clarity or refresh information without changing the article’s central reasoning.

    • Replace an outdated link with the current official source
    • Refresh annual limits that do not alter the underlying conclusion
    • Clarify wording without changing the substantive meaning
    Editorial response Update the article and revise the displayed update date when the change is meaningful to readers.
    Material correction

    A factual or analytical error is identified.

    Errors affecting a key fact, calculation, example or qualification should be corrected promptly and transparently.

    • Incorrect threshold, formula or numerical calculation
    • Source cited for a claim it does not actually support
    • Missing qualification that materially affects who the verdict applies to
    Editorial response Correct the article and disclose the material change when readers could have relied on the earlier version.
    Verdict reassessment

    New information may change the answer.

    A major rule change, new evidence or altered financial environment may require the analysis to be rebuilt rather than lightly edited.

    • New law or regulation changes the controlling rule
    • Credible new evidence weakens a central assumption
    • The original verdict no longer fits current conditions
    Editorial response Reevaluate the claim using the full methodology and revise the verdict when the evidence supports a different answer.

    Trust requires work before publication and accountability afterward.

    FMB reviews the full argument, cites material evidence, identifies applicable dates and updates or corrects articles when important facts no longer support the published analysis.

    Review the full argument Cite material claims Display relevant dates Correct material errors Reassess outdated verdicts

    What This Means for Readers

    A financial verdict should be understandable, traceable, and useful.

    FMB’s methodology is designed to help readers distinguish a persuasive financial claim from a well-supported conclusion. Every analysis should make it possible to understand what was tested, which evidence was used, what the result depends on, and where reasonable uncertainty remains.

    Commitment 01

    Show the reasoning.

    Readers should not be asked to trust a conclusion merely because it sounds confident or comes from someone with credentials.

    • Define the exact claim being tested
    • Identify the rules and evidence used
    • Explain how the evidence supports the final verdict
    Commitment 02

    Show the limits.

    Financial answers often change with income, taxes, timing, location, risk, behavior and the household’s broader priorities.

    • Separate known facts from estimates
    • Identify assumptions capable of changing the outcome
    • Avoid presenting a conditional result as a universal rule
    Commitment 03

    Remain accountable.

    Publication does not make an analysis permanently correct. Material changes, errors and better evidence should be addressed.

    • Display relevant publication and update dates
    • Correct material errors clearly and promptly
    • Reassess verdicts when the underlying answer changes

    Trust the process—not a promise of perfect certainty.

    FMB provides independent financial education, not personalized financial, tax, legal, investment or accounting advice. The methodology helps readers evaluate financial claims and identify the facts and tradeoffs worth discussing with an appropriate qualified professional.

    Read Editorial Standards Explore Money Myths

    Found a possible error, outdated rule, or source that deserves review?