Gary,

Thanks for your note. Speaking for my section, I did not intentionally set out to create non-numerical parameters, but I'm glad it worked out that way. I really just set out to examine what was behind the best businesses and stocks of the last several decades, attempting to deduce what it was about those companies that led to such amazing returns for investors (including a few we've had amazing returns with). As it turned out, I found myself studying the businesses (fundamentals) far more than the stock prices (technicals). And coming up with qualitative measures is Foolish in that it forces an investor to really think about a company, its management, its competitive position in its industry, and the "endgame."

Non-numerical lists often lead to deeper consideration than numerical check lists, which is part of what I find satisfying about our new book.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read it and comment. Fool on.

David Gardner