It's also often not the reliability, it's what to do with the reliable mammogram or change in PSA.
I always wonder what the practical effect is.
One thing that is helpful is hearing oneself have the conversation, and having further on the way home, with oneself or w/ whomever one is with. Letting it sink in, sleeping on it.
So you're a 100%-success 'aimer'?
Assume humility (in advice-giving) on part of expert.

I always wonder what the practical effect of such fine distinction-making is.
'For the particular kind of [prostate, breast] cancer you have, the new data show that watchful waiting outcomes are as good in terms of mortality and life quality as treatment, often better, and the number needed to treat is yada yada. Discuss with your doctor whether treatment or monitoring is right for you.'
'Return-sequence risk is always significant and badly down years at the start of your retirement can be deleterious to all of your planning. Discuss with your adviser the consequences of not planning yada yada ...'
And then what? What is the discussion? What can it change besides (dis)comfort level and moves toward drastic preventive actions? How wise is it to have 'just get rid of it' surgery or go to all laddered CDs? In the worst case, plenty wise. So is the discussion necessarily education in likelihood of worst cases?

Some of it certainly is education about worst case probabilities. There's a general belief that outcomes are better if treatment is more aggressive. Sometimes that's true, often it's not, especially given possibilities of false positives (not ill when tests say otherwise).
For example, mammograms are not too reliable with dense breast tissue. Here's a page from the American Cancer Society suggesting in that case you talk with your doctor, because on the one hand you might want to also have an MRI. But it also says that MRIs produce false positives leading to more tests and biopsies (which have their own risks).
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/mammograms/breast-density-and-your-mammogram-report.html
Similarly, PSA tests are not especially reliable and can lead to biopsies with risks.
A good part of the conversation can simply be an exploration of what's really important to you. In some other thread was a link to an article on how the usual financial planning questions are not helpful, e.g. "would you risk a 20% loss if 2/3 of the time you'd gain 15%?" People don't know what they want or how they'd react if actually (not hypothetically) faced with a 20% loss.
So IMHO talking with a planner at length about what really concerns you and discussing the cost/benefits of different risk mitigators (e.g. immediate annuities, long term care insurance, greater cash allocations, etc.) is a good use of time.
Different people place different values on a given outcome. Worse, most people don't even have a clear idea of how they value each possible outcome.
At one end of the spectrum you have women who will have radical mastectomies because they have a genetic risk of cancer. They choose life, regardless of its quality, over all else. At the other end of the spectrum, you have men who will decline prostate cancer treatment even when faced with certain death, rather than assume any risk of impotence due to treatment.
There are real people like that. I think I can appreciate their perspectives even if I don't agree with them.
Personally, I don't want to go broke, period. In that financial sense, I take an extreme position. A magic number of, say 95% chance of success tells me nothing. I need to know what the 5% of paths look like. Then I can explore possible followup actions that would increase success to 100%.
Likewise with that doctor talk. It's difficult to follow radiation therapy with surgery if the radiation is unsuccessful, while the reverse is much easier. That's a consideration in selecting choice of treatment, if one is willing to live with the much higher likelihood of a degraded quality of life due to multiple therapies.
Knowing not only the odds but the paths of outcomes enables you to plan for dealing with possible failures. And for not doing something just because the expert, whether physician or advisor, felt it was best in his not so humble opinion.

"We have morphed from an agricultural dominated economy to an industrial powerhouse. ... For most of the limited analyses that I do, I favor data from after WW II. I recognize the shortfall in numbers that that decision introduces, but I believe these data are more relevant."
There you have it - faith-based investing. You acknowledge that that times change (so that just perhaps the "mean" in mean reversion also changes), but you're stuck in a post WW II industrial past. Maybe that's because that's roughly the period spanning your lifetime, or at least that part of your lifetime when you were aware of your surroundings.
Daniel Bell coined the term post-industrial society all the way back in 1973. The US has moved well beyond the industrial age. It's a service economy now, where fewer people work in industry (even as output increases), just as fewer people work in your agrarian sector even as output increases.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-jsamuelson-myths-of-post-industrial-america/2013/04/07/775d1062-9fb2-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.htm
See ag commodity by commodity production graphs (1960 - present) here:
https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=us&commodity=milled-rice&graph=production
For earlier data (1900 to 1950), one can wade through this doc:Changes in Agriculture 1900-1950
The decade after WW II was economically unique, as the US was essentially the last economy left standing. Rather than helping to inform investment decisions in today's economy, an argument can be made that that period is no more relevant than the Roaring Twenties.
Geopolitics is another matter. There, WW II is an important starting point. That's when Pax Americana began. But for "the limited analyses that [you] do", this doesn't come into play.

FYI: Studies have consistently shown that dividend-paying stocks tend to outperform their non-dividend paying counterparts over time. From 1930 to 2015, roughly 43% of the S&P 500’s total return came from dividends.
Companies with long histories of paying and growing their dividends demonstrate a financial strength and consistency that makes them ideal investments for most portfolios. Investors who choose funds that target these dividend growth stocks can generate strong risk-adjusted returns over the long term.
If you’re an investor looking to generate income or take advantage of a strategy with a long-term track record of success, consider adding one of these funds to your portfolio. In case you are wondering whether mutual funds are right for you, you should read why mutual funds, in general, should be part of your portfolio
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/news/2015/12/10/the-top-mutual-funds-for-dividend-growth/?utm_source=MutualFunds.com&utm_campaign=bd2cebe35d-Dispatch_Weekend_Engage_09_30_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_83e106a88d-bd2cebe35d-290921629

There are now nine equity funds at least 10 years old through September that have never incurred a negative return over any 3-year rolling period. There were only five last month. The four new funds just turned 10! They are Boston Trust Midcap Fund (BTMFX), Delaware Healthcare Fund Inst (DLHIX), Prospector Capital Appreciation Fund (PCAFX), and Prospector Opportunity Fund (POPFX).
Four of the nine are MFO Great Owls, and David profiled PCAFX in 2011. He gave it a thumbs-up.
Here's an update of the complete list published in this month's commentary (click image to enlarge):

With respect to tools that use real data as opposed to hypothetical random data (that downplay the possibility of multiyear bears found in historical data) being somehow inferior or limited to merely hundreds of sequences, here's some what what Kitces writes:

There’s never been any way to illustrate those alternative assumptions [e.g. "spending changes based on varying goals or changing needs"], as even the best financial planning software is still built around straight-line assumptions and Monte Carlo analysis.
Until now, as in the past year, two new software solutions for advisors have come forth ...

While those two tools are designed for advisors, what I want to highlight is that they are both based on historical data spanning a century (one using montly CRSP data back to 1920) or more (the other using DMS global data of a score of countries going back to 1900). Not small data sets, and as I read Kitces, better than any existing probability-based tools.
He goes on to note that even these tools are best used for educational purposes, not planning:

[They] are better viewed as a mechanism to teach and illustrate safe withdrawal rates, the sustainability of (steady) retirement withdrawals in the face of various market return sequences, and the impact of asset allocation ... on the sustainability of portfolio distributions. In other words, they can set the groundwork for initial client education about sequence of return risk and its consequences

Thanks Ted,
Additional articles written by Kimberly Lankford:
kiplinger.com/fronts/archive/bios/index.html?bylineID=10

Equities appeared to be propelled by a pair of key trends: stronger year-on-year earnings growth at the corporate level, plus evidence of synchronized global GDP growth for the first time in several years. The latter trend suggests that companies could sustain or even accelerate their profitability in the coming quarters.
Projected year-on-year U.S. earnings growth rate for 3Q is in the high single digits, and it’s even higher in overseas stock markets. This is one of the key reasons why we favor international developed and emerging markets
We are underweight U.S. large cap and small cap stocks, primarily based on relative valuation metrics.
We are overweight non-U.S. developed market equities, emerging market equities, high-yield bonds and long-dated Treasuries. Emerging market stocks have been among the best-performing asset classes in 2017, and we think they remain an appealing investment opportunity based on valuation and earnings growth potential. Profitability is also on the upswing in developed markets as GDP growth improves. High yield is benefiting from very low default rates, while expectations of a slow-moving Fed buoys long Treasuries.

Market-Commentary

Hello,
Another good week in the markets with the S&P 500 Index up about 1.2%.
With stocks being richly priced as measured by Old_Skeet's market barometer the S&P 500 Index (SPY) is in the middle of overvalued territory with a reading of 138; and, with Morningstar's Market Valuation Graph indicating stocks, in general, are at about a four percent premium Old_Skeet is still in his cash build mode within his mutual fund portfolio.
I am still pondering about making a position in AWTAX (a global water fund) thus increasing my sector weightings primarily in the industrial and utility sectors. This is more of a growth play as this fund has little yield and this is what is holding me back. I'm thinking, I might be better off investing in a conserative growth fund like AMCPX that makes a twice a year distribution or PGROX (a conserative global growth fund) that pays out about three times a year.
More pondering to do while I await the next pullback.

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Rolling Averages, Correlation, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard.

FYI: Ed Yardeni, who has been about as right about this market since the 2009 lows as anyone, believes stocks still have some room to run.
Regards,
Ted
http://ritholtz.com/2017/10/earnings-inflation-signal-sp-500-isnt-excessive-chart-day/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)

FYI: If you just entered the workforce, it’s time to start preparing for retirement. Over the next four decades, you might pull in tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. An October 2012 Census Bureau study estimates that those with a bachelor’s degree have average lifetime earnings of $2.4 million, figured in today’s dollars.
Of course, it’s lucky you have all that income coming in, because ahead of you lies life’s toughest financial task: amassing enough money so you can retire in comfort. In dry economic terms, your working career is about accumulating enough financial capital, so that one day you’ll no longer need the income from your human capital. This, alas, is a task that most Americans are not good at.
Want to do better? As you ponder how to pay for retirement, it’s helpful to think about your life in three stages—your 20s, 30s and 40s, your 50s and early 60s, and age 65 and beyond—which is how this part of the guide is divvied up.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.humbledollar.com/money-guide/retirement/

Okay, since we're off topic anyway, I'll add that my dad took me to my first MLB game - the first Colt .45 game, in '62, an offensive show against the Cubs. The one mental picture left is Al Spangler's triple to the corner in right in the bottom of the first that drove in the first run in franchise history.
A shot of Al on his '63 Topps b-ball card ...

Tortoise Capital Advisors:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171005006383/en
Morgan Stanley:
https://www.morganstanley.com/im/publication/forms/tax/2017-estimated-yearend-distributions.pdf

1962 was before my time, Ted!
White Sox played great in 2005. Jermaine Dye & friends were awesome. I believe they had the best record in the AL that year.
That Astros team won 89 games, finished 11 back of St Louis, and clawed their way to the World Series as a wild card. No one around here expected them to get that far.
It was Biggio and Bagwell's last hurrah. As great as they were, they rarely produced in the postseason. In nine postseason series together, Biggio hit .234. Bagwell .226. Went 5 for 26 combined against the Sox. Sad face.

@PBKCM: Nice Astros win ! Do you go back as far as the 1962 Colt 45's. But the best is when in 2005 the White Sox swept Astros 4-0.
Regards,
Ted

Hi @PRESSmUP,
Thanks for sharing your RMD strategy.
I have not been selling anything within mine and my wife's ira accounts but have been accruing all mutual fund distributions to cash. By year end 2017 I will be close to having the 2018 RMDs fully funded just from fund distributions. So if a nearterm pullback should present itself I'm good through 2018. I'll build my 2019 distribution pool during 2018. And, there are in kind distributions available as well.
I'm like you ... it feels good knowing they are already bagged.
Old_Skeet

Thanks @Ted
From today's summary:
"The S&P 500 Index advanced 0.6 percent to a record 2,552.07 at 4 p.m. New York Time.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 114 points to 22,755, rising for the seventh day in a row to a record. The Nasdaq 100 Stock Index rose 1 percent to 6,057. The Stoxx Europe 600 Index gained 0.2 percent after falling as much as 0.3 percent. Spain’s IBEX Index rose 2.5 percent, the most since in almost six months."
Pretty numbers. But my benchmark, TRRIX (a conservative 40/60 fund for old farts) was flat. My holdings did slightly better at +.07%. Nothing I hold was particularily strong. OAKBX (+.35%) has been running slightly ahead of the pack in recent days (perhaps on it's GM stake?)
What gives? a 100+ point rise in the Dow and my allocation fund didn't budge a bit. Guess bonds gave up a little, but nothing dramatic. (Donald's remarks hurt munis.)
Strange markets.
Edit: Mystery solved. The fund was late posting its day's results. Actually, TRRIX did gain a couple cents (+.13%) for the day. I'd forgotten that these types of allocation funds are sometimes late due the large number of different funds they invest in. If just one of those comes in late it affects the posting of nav for the allocation fund.
Still, weird markets I think.

In a bit of good fortune, the nice little run-up has bumped two of my funds in the IRA to hit the dollar threshold for a haircut...RPMGX along with GPGOX. These are up 20% and 24% respectively YTD. The harvested profits will simply go into a slot for 2018 IRA distribution, so it's nice to get that taken care of before year end.
Maybe it's only me, but the market seems to be inching up way too easily. The chatter about our administration's decision next week regarding whether to certify the Iran nuclear agreement may serve to throw a monkey into the wrench. I'm happy to take some profits off the table before that decision is announced.

FYI: The three main U.S. indexes climbed to fresh record-highs for the fourth day in a row on Thursday, fueled by gains in technology stocks, including Microsoft (MSFT.O) and Amazon.com (AMZN.O).
Nine of the 11 major S&P indexes were higher, led by the information technology .SPLRCT and financial .SPSY sectors. Tech stocks, which have powered much of the recent rally, have risen about 26 percent this year.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-04/dollar-bonds-are-listless-as-oil-drops-below-50-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-indexes-scale-fresh-record-highs-on-tech-gains-idUSKBN1CA18I
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-set-to-hover-at-record-levels-with-fed-speakers-in-the-spotlight-2017-10-05/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/nasdaq-leads-solid-up-session-as-bull-run-continues-unabated/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/us-stocks-sp-record-high.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-10-05/your-evening-briefing
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Positive
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx