Revision to the question of Why not 100% stocks

Casual holiday picking drew this question to mind: Why not 100% stocks? The question was raised in "The Intelligent Investor", 2003 Edition. The answer was given in the book.

For a tiny minority of investors, a 100%-stock portfolio may make sense. You are one of them if you:

• have set aside enough cash to support your family for at least one year
• will be investing steadily for at least 20 years to come
• survived the bear market that began in 2000
• did not sell stocks during the bear market that began in 2000
• bought more stocks during the bear market that began in 2000
• have implemented a formal plan to control your own behavior

Unless you can honestly pas all these tests, you have no business putting all your money in stocks. Anyone who panicked in the last bear market is going to panic in the next one --- and will regret having no cushion of cash and bonds.

As the author expected, the next one did come in 2008, with much stronger damaging power. So is the same question still viable? I think yes with some revision. The following is my version. I believe everyone who has ever thought about thi

• have survived the 2008 crisis and understand why you survived not from luck
• learned what to sell and what to buy in 2008
• developed a trading philosophy to weather storms at this magnitude
• Started accumulating strong stocks since 2008
• Learned how to self-protect, or how to stop loss
  
• Know how to control risk
• Know how to win big in 2009