Warren --

Thanks very much for the critical read, and for letting me know how you felt about the post.

Most importantly of all, please call me Will.

There are lots of different approaches to writing, and mine is to just do what feels right. That means fragments! Lots, sometimes. I understand that is something of a polarizing choice among grammaticians, but it's the way I think and speak and so it's the way I write.

I apologize if there are too many links for your taste in this piece. The format of the Weekend Reads column is to include a large selection of pieces for our audience to browse. I don't intend for you to read all of them. I hope you did find one or two of interest.

Though I agree the gunning-fog index is a useful tool, I strongly disagree that it should be a primary part of the writing process for investment professionals.

I'll get to why, but first here is the formula:

[https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/84cd504cf61d432…]

Though it's a beautiful quick and dirty way to estimate readability, it has a number of limitations. Here are three of them:

One of many: If you visit the "analyze my writing" site in the first link above, you'll find a breadth of writing analysis tools which paint a much clearer picture when taken together. Just like financial ratios, linguistic tools are not recommended for use in isolation.
What's complex? The word "cheeseburger" and the word "ebitda" are equally complex in the gunning-fog method, as both have 3 syllables.
Not so predictive:The evidence that the Gunning-Fog index predicts reader estimates of "readability" is surprisingly weak [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/6EWH-J5C5-AV1X-KDGJ].

With that said, If you think something helps you write, I think you should use it. I would just suggest taking care about the way you rely on it. I think the best tool of all is in the title: just write.

Cheers, and all the best!

Will