Query: Can I trust the Motley Fool?

Relevant passages:
 <=SEP=> The Motley Fool is generally regarded as relatively legit, at least in that they're not likely to do anything outright fraudulent and they definitely have reasonably in-depth content to provide you.  The Motley Fool makes a fair amount of money off the subscriptions, though, and they do hawk them quite violently. If I didn't have a generally good opinion of them to begin with, I'd have been completely put off as well. It's pretty shameful. I don't think it's worth hundreds of dollars a year, but then again, I don't look at investing as a second career like the Fool likes to suggest, either.

 <=SEP=> Upselling you is how they make money.  That's the price of the free content. Test their recommendations.  Pretend to buy the stocks they say.  How do they do?  Do they ever say to sell the stocks after their buy recommendations? There are lots and lots of opinions out there.  I doubt people really hear about the good ones because (a) the good ones have paid newsletters and/or (b) the good ones aren't telling a soul because they're absolutely cleaning it up. Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions.  He's been buying for a while before anyone finds out.

 <=SEP=> Hmm.. hey bro, not personal, but is what comes to mind: I guess my answer will be highly down voted... =P

 <=SEP=> "I've had a MF Stock Advisor for 7 or 8 years now, and I've belong to Supernova for a couple of years. I also have money in one of their mutual funds. ""The Fool"" has a lot of very good educational information available, especially for people who are new to investing. Many people do not understand that Wall Street is in the business of making money for Wall Street, not making money for investors.  I have stayed with the Fool because their philosophy aligns with my personal investment philosophy. I look at the Stock Advisor picks; sometimes I buy them, sometimes I don't, but the analysis is very good. They also have been good at tracking their picks over time, and writing updates when specific stocks drop a certain amount. With their help, I've assembled a portfolio that I don't have to spend too much time managing, and have done pretty well from a return perspective. Stock Advisor also has a good set of forums where you can interact with other investors.  In summary, the view from the inside has been pretty good. From the outside, I think their marketing is a reflection of the fact that most people aren't very interested in a rational & conservative approach to investing in the stock market, so MF chooses to go for an approach that gets more traffic. I'm not particularly excited about it, but I'm sure they've done AB testing and have figured out what way works the best. I think that they have had money-back guarantees on some of their programs in the past, so you could try them out risk free. Not sure if those are still around."

 <=SEP=> "Not sure how I came across the Motley Fool blog in the first instance, but found the writing style refreshing - then along came some free advice on ASX share prospects, then the next day and email expounding the benefits I would get by joining up for two years at 60% off if I hit the button ""now"", getting in at ground floor on the next technology stock rocket - I replied: ""What a hard sell - why wouldn't I apply the age old adage of "" If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"" Their reply was; ""Thanks for your note. The honest answer is that despite people knowing they should do something to help themselves prepare for their financial futures, few actually do it. We find these messages actually work in getting people to hit 'yes', much better than an understated email that just says 'here are our results and our philosophy - let us know if you're interested', unfortunately. Yours Foolishly"" So I have put some of these recommendations onto a watch list, time will tell."

 <=SEP=> "I would personally beware of the Motley Fool. Their success is based largely on their original investment strategy book. It had a lot of good advice in it, but it pushed a strategy called ""The Foolish Four"" which was an investing strategy. Since it was based on a buy-and-hold method with 18-month evaluation intervals, it was not a get-rich-quick scheme. However, its methods were validated through data mining and subsequently turned out to be not so good. At least they admit this: http://www.fool.com/ddow/2000/ddow001214.htm"