Hello Jan,

Sure.  The candy bar example illustrates marginal utility.  It illustrates the fact that the first candy bar is worth more to me than the second.  The two candy bars cost the same.  I value two candy bars highly enough that I accept the ***market valuation*** for those two candy bars and I buy.  I do not accept the market valuation for that third candy bar, and I do not buy a third candy bar.

In my simple example, the first 50% of my portfolio allocation is worth it to me.  The next one percent is not worth it.  Each one percent costs the same.  I accept the ***market valuation*** for the first 50 increments of one percent each, but not for the next one percent increment.

And economically, costs are costs.  All costs are opportunity costs anyway.  This is just basic economics--costs are costs.

Now, the article that was posted talked about market valuations.  It did not talk about timing and it in no way suggested that anyone should "not put new money in the market".  Whether or not someone should change their asset allocation is an asset allocation decision, so that's why I called it that.

We can (and often do) use market valuations without using market timing.  We can use market timing without using market valuations.  In fact, most market timing systems I know of do not use market valuations.  So they are two separate subjects.  I am not contradicting myself.  I cannot understand how you would see a contradiction unless you desperately hope one exists for some strange reason.

L