According to the folks at CNN/Money, today’s tough times call for a new take on the “rules” of financial security. Number one on the list: It’s time to re-think risk.

That’s a good hook. The recent turmoil in the markets has scared people to the point of stocking up on canned goods, so anyone who’s ready to offer a new outlook on this seemingly extinct notion of security is undoubtedly going to be playing to a full house.

Security? Now? Tell me, please!

Well, that’s what CNN/Money promises to do. They have the new recipe–with 7 secret herbs and spices–that will produce some finger lickin’ good investment results. Or do they?

I’m beginning if this new formula is anything more than a repackaging of the old one, framed within a discussion of current events to make it seem timely.

Case in point: Rule #1. Basically, they’re telling us that the days of acting like a riverboat gambler are gone, reserved solely for re-runs of Maverick on the Encore western channel. Instead, we should be approaching risk with a more conservative perspective. Here it is:

“Old thinking: If you can stomach the ups and downs that come with risk, you’ll be rewarded.
New rule: Risk isn’t about your stomach. It’s about making or missing an important goal. “

In other words, you shouldn’t risk so much that you put your future needs and goals at risk. That doesn’t sound like horrible advice at all, does it? Nope.

It also doesn’t sound much like a new rule. It sounds suspiciously like the same rule every reasonable person who has invested in the market or walked into an Atlantic City casino has always used. If you can’t lose it, don’t risk it.

You see, this isn’t a new rule. It just sounds that way because it’s set against the backdrop of a DOW that doesn’t seem hellbent on reaching the five-figure mark again any time soon.

The fact of the matter is that the risk/reward factor has always been with it and will always be with us. If you want to win big, you’re going to carry more risk than if you’re happy grinding out a lower rate of return.

The people who are reading CNN/Money aren’t staring at crushed 401(k) updates because they decided to play the market equivalent of baccarat like a drunk millionaire tourist. They were on safe side of risk/reward in the first place.

There wasn’t anything widely regarded as high-risk about having some of your money in GE or GMC. Those mutual funds were assembled carefully to mitigate massive risk. Very few of those average Janes and Joes who are now wondering what it’s going to be like sleeping on their kid’s basement futon in five years lost massive chunks of their retirement investments because they were being wild.

This “new rule” isn’t new at all. Period. The article says:

“This bear market’s lesson is that how much risk you can take is a matter of how much you can lose and still meet your basic goals.”

I’m wondering when that hasn’t been the lesson? As far as I can remember, it’s always been one of the first things everyone in the whole wide world learns about investment. Risk pays more when things work out, but you shouldn’t take on too much risk if the higher likelihood of disappointment is going to cripple you.

That’s the way it’s always been. It’s the way it will always be.

They conclude the article by recommending that readers take it a little easier on stock buys due to risk, even if that costs them a little bit. That may or may not be good advice. We’ll see. But that’s market projection; it’s not an investment rule.

I have no doubt that crazed risk-taking backfired on some regular folk. Over extension by those higher up on the financial ladder was also a problem. However, pretending that the lesson of the last several months is that people need to stop doing “insane” things like buying into middle-of-the-road mutual funds packed with consistent Fortune 500 performers is make-believe.

The new rule is the old rule. People aren’t sick to their stomachs because they behaved wildly. They played by this rule all along and still ended up on the short end of the stick. There’s something sort of ugly about implying that retirement funds were smashed because of the greed of reasonable people behaving in accordance with professional recommendations (including those of CNN/Money, I might add).