See if your holdings have earned their way to your personal "Big Dance." When you find a fund that is "on the bubble" -- meaning it's not an obvious choice to buy again today -- you'll have a "watch list" of funds that may, in time, deserve the boot.

The conference the fund plays in. In hoops, there are "power conferences" -- where a 6th-place team might make the tournament -- and "midmajor conferences," where only the tournament champion goes. In mutual funds, there are asset classes. Your search for a fund should start by deciding the type of assets you want to own.

Conference record. In basketball, it's important to be in the top half of your league. In mutual funds, it's about being consistently in the top half of the fund's peer group, and being in the top one-third over longer time periods.

Quality wins. This is the NCAA's way of saying that you beat good opponents, and a mutual fund's way of showing that it performed well in tough times.

Strength of schedule. In basketball, you want to play tough opponents rather than cupcakes. In mutual funds, it's not a bad idea to favor a fund that has results over a lot of time periods so that you can judge it based on everything from the last quarter to the last decade or more.

Power rankings. In basketball, this is the computer's attempt to suggest that one team is better than another; in mutual funds, it's star ratings, numerical rankings and more."

The leader of this counterintuitive challenge is Larry Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor and co-author of "The Coming Generational Storm," an analysis of dire solutions necessary to cover future unfunded Social Security and Medicare benefits. His co-author is financial columnist Scott Burns of the Dallas Morning News. Kotlikoff's research says investors should focus on income while working to figure out retirement needs.

Saving too much? You bet. A New York Times review of Kotlikoff's numbers "showed that Fidelity's online calculators typically set the target of assets needed to cover spending in retirement 36.4% too high. Vanguard's was 53.1% too high. A calculator offered by TIAA-CREF, one of the largest managers of retirement savings, was 78%" higher than the calculations generated by Kotlikoff's ESPlanner.

As expected, they were quite defensive about this challenge. The Times says: "The financial-planning industry prefers to characterize itself as cautious. William Ebsworth, chief investment officer of Fidelity Investments' Strategic Advisers division, which runs retirement programs, said, 'We take a very conservative approach,' preferring to err on the side of having money left over at death rather than risk running out before then."

While their reaction is understandable, it's a diversion: They fail to deal with their own conflict of interest and motives in overstating assets needed in retirement.

So let's repeat it again: You are unnecessarily investing too much of your hard-earned money into too many assets for retirement. As a result, you're sacrificing too much of the present, under the highly questionable and misleading assumptions about piling up excessive savings for an uncertain future."