>This is probably the largest daily gathering of FPA readers and I think FPA owes at least an explanation. I feel there are credibility issues here if you just ignore the technical concerns that were raised.
>

The magazine (or, more precisely, the FPA website) is the place for a responsse to the technical concerns that were raised. If Miriam and Liz feel that John's message makes valid corrections to the article (or, for that matter, that he raises issues that are subject to misunderstanding by many readers and thus should be further illuminated), a follow-up will no doubt be posted at advisor.com. FPA has never been in the habit of posting corrections on other websites, nor are letters to the editor ignored. (However, to answer one of John's comments, neither do the letter-writers generally get personal responses from the writers of the articles.)

Tamar