Primary Authority
Laws, regulations, tax rules, agency guidance, plan documents, regulatory requirements, and other first-party materials.
FMB Methodology
FinanceMythBusters tests financial claims against evidence, not opinion. We define the question, weigh the sources, model the outcomes, and show the tradeoffs other advice skips, then reach a verdict that matches the evidence.
The FMB Framework
FMB does not begin with a verdict. We begin by defining the decision, establishing the evidence, and identifying the variables that could materially change the answer.
Turn broad financial advice into a specific question that can actually be tested.
Identify the income, tax, household, liquidity, location, and goal-related facts that can change the result.
Start with laws, regulations, official guidance, original data, research, plan documents, and other authoritative evidence.
Separate known facts from estimates involving returns, inflation, taxes, costs, time horizons, and behavior.
Compare realistic outcomes across taxes, cash flow, risk, liquidity, flexibility, and opportunity cost.
State what the evidence supports, who the conclusion applies to, and what facts could reasonably change it.
Evidence Comes First
Different questions require different sources. FMB prioritizes evidence that is authoritative, traceable, current, and appropriate for the claim being tested.
Laws, regulations, tax rules, agency guidance, plan documents, regulatory requirements, and other first-party materials.
Government statistics, regulatory filings, official datasets, and published figures closest to the underlying financial question.
Peer-reviewed studies, academic research, and transparent original analysis with methods that can be evaluated.
Credible professional, institutional, and technical analysis used to explain or contextualize stronger underlying evidence.
*Reader stories, surveys, and public discussion can identify useful questions, but they are not treated as proof of a universal financial claim.
Facts, Assumptions & Scenarios
Many financial decisions depend on variables no one can know in advance. FMB separates what can be established today from what must be assumed, then tests how sensitive the conclusion is to those assumptions.
Current tax limits, account rules, plan terms, interest rates, transaction costs, filing requirements, and other information that can be established from current evidence.
Future investment returns, inflation, salary growth, tax rates, home appreciation, behavior, timing, and other inputs that require a reasonable estimate.
Scenario testing
Tests the decision when important conditions are less favorable.
Uses reasonable central assumptions for a practical comparison.
Shows how the result changes when conditions work more strongly in the strategy’s favor.
Why this matters: If a small change in an assumption reverses the conclusion, that sensitivity belongs in the answer.
Compare the Whole Decision
FMB compares the dimensions that affect how a decision works in real life—not only the headline return.
Expected growth, yield, savings, or other measurable financial upside.
Current and future tax treatment, deductions, credits, and tax-location effects.
How easily money can be accessed when circumstances or priorities change.
Market, concentration, leverage, sequence, behavioral, and other material risks.
How much optionality the decision preserves for future choices and changing goals.
What must be delayed, reduced, or given up when capital is committed elsewhere.
A financially optimal answer on paper can still be a poor decision if it ignores liquidity, risk, taxes, or the household using it.
The FMB Verdict Framework
FMB uses a five-level verdict scale so readers can see whether a claim fails, holds up, or depends on specific facts that materially change the answer.
The central claim does not survive the evidence as defined.
There is some truth behind the advice, but the broader claim is misleading or leaves out important conditions.
Meaningful facts or assumptions can reasonably change the answer.
The evidence generally supports the claim, with important qualifications or exceptions.
Strong evidence consistently supports the claim as it has been defined.
When the answer depends on the reader’s circumstances, FMB should identify the variables, thresholds, or assumptions that drive the difference.
Review, Updates & Corrections
Before publication—and again when material rules or evidence change—FMB checks whether the conclusion still follows from the underlying facts and assumptions.
Confirm the evidence, assumptions, and comparison actually support the stated conclusion.
Recheck calculations, thresholds, dates, limits, and the period to which they apply.
Connect material claims to evidence readers can identify and evaluate for themselves.
Update or correct content when rules, evidence, calculations, or other material facts change.
What This Means for Readers
A strong FMB analysis should help you understand the reasoning, see the limits, and identify which facts matter most for the decision in front of you.
See how the evidence, assumptions, calculations, and tradeoffs connect to the conclusion.
Know which circumstances, estimates, exceptions, or future changes could alter the answer.
Use the analysis to identify the questions, thresholds, and tradeoffs worth examining in your own situation.
FMB provides general financial education, not individualized financial, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or insurance advice. Read the full Disclaimer→
Related FMB Standards
How FMB approaches accuracy, review, independence, and accountability.
Why FinanceMythBusters exists and the readers it is built to serve.
Important limits on educational content and how it should be used.
Report an error, outdated information, or another issue that needs attention.
The Weekly FMB Brief
Evidence-based insights, useful tools, and new guides. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
