In a May 2nd, post on Motley Fool @msnbc. com, the authors try to convince us that we've missed a huge opportunity, perhaps a once in a life time opportunity, to provide for our financial futures because we were under allocated to stocks and/or didn't contribute enough to our retirement plan.

It's not about THE economy, it's about YOUR economy. 

It's not about THE economy, it's about YOUR economy. 

In a May 2nd, post on Motley Fool @msnbc. com, the authors try to convince us that we've missed a huge opportunity, perhaps a once in a life time opportunity, to provide for our financial futures because we were under allocated to stocks and/or didn't contribute enough to our retirement plan.

As is often the case, the authors help us understand the error of our ways by noting that we need to be fixated on making the most amount of money that we can on any day, at any given moment and in any given market. AND, true to form, they manage to provide us with some (suspect) remedies which, as you might imagine, play perfectly into "creating transactions" game which keeps Wall Street running. If you missed your best chance to create a sustainable retirement, you can fix it by simply [a] contributing more to your retirement plan and [b] picking some bullet proof stocks. Wait a minute, there are bullet proof stocks? Oh, ok, there are lists of bullet proof stocks (and funds, and UIT's and bond funds, and hedge funds, and can't miss land deals) but not actually any bullet proof stocks, just lists of them.

Ironic that the one salient theme would actually work, to monitor what you pay for your investments because overpaying results in almost guaranteed returns, even made the list. Odd that the one metric that might actually ensure that you make some progress came in third. That's sort of like telling Titanic travelers that they should [a] buy some floaties, or; [b] buy some long underwear and lastly, stay home. They're all good recommendations but an appreciative re-order of those recommendations seesms in order to me.
Amazing it is that you can write an article about the fall of someone elses retirement and never mention either RISK or GOALS? How exactly does that work?

Lest we forget, 2008 came about in world where RISK and GOALS weren't important. Greed was.
When you're "success" is measured in whether or not your greed was satisfied any successes you have will be short lived.

You'll blow your chance at retirement if you can't define what it is or how much it will cost.

As noted many times in my blogs; if you don't know what it will cost, you can't tell how much it will take to fund it. No amount of contribution will ever be "right" unless you know how much you need and no "investment selection" will ever be right until you know the rate of return you need to fund your goals.
If pension plans can take too much risk and wind up either overfunded or under-funded, why can't you?