"asked whether he invests in stocks, he replied, "Not as much these days. I used to have a lot in equities—about 75%—but over the past three years, I’ve had about 95% in cash and 5% in equities. You’re not getting much from savings these days but earning 0% is better than losing 50%."
Numerous financial experts assert the current valuations within the stock market do not reflect the underlying fundamentals; or, in other words, ZIRP allows for cheap debt in the bond markets which many firms are using to aggressively buy back stock, thereby artificially inflating the market value. Thus, "a correction" is due and his statement is still valid from a conservative investing standpoint.
http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/
Picking arbitrary dates to buy a lot of equities and then not selling them isn't market timing; trying to trade repeatedly on the right dates is. That's how you lose all your money.
It would have been very rare for one to have -- while trying to be prudent -- constructed a portfolio of assets across checking accounts, equities, bonds, and primary residence that saw anything like a 50% loss from peak to 2008-crisis trough.
Note that the checking account loss was 0%; bonds did not perform as badly as equities; and in the vast majority of the US, residential RE did not fall 50%. Also note that if one did not choose the absolute generational bottom to liquidate the entire portfolio, the actual losses would have been lesser still. In other words, allocating across a diverse set of assets would have protected from the worst of the downside (while letting you participate in the historic run in equities since).
Irrational fear of volatility is going to have a lot of people retiring much later than they would like, with less money than they would like.
I also have $1 in my savings account.
Nouriel Roubini lost 260% gains + dividends between 2009 and today. So... I wouldn't really count on this guy's advice at all.