The Most Rational Financial Plan is Sometimes Unreasonable

You sit with your calculator, crunching numbers for hours, determined to pick the absolute best routine—the one that guarantees success, the portfolio with the highest theoretical returns. But then the story shifts. A Nobel-winning economist says his own investments aimed not for perfection, but for minimized regret. Others in the room nod. Why? Because the most rational plan on paper quickly crumbles if worry, boredom, or nerves keep you from sticking with it.

History is dotted with experts—financial or otherwise—who followed 'imperfect' strategies precisely because they worked for their personalities, circumstances, and values. It turns out that being 'reasonable' beats being theoretical. Even if science says a certain approach yields better results over a century, it means nothing if you bail out after two tough years.

Behavioral science calls this 'satisficing'—doing what works well enough to keep going, knowing that consistency trumps precision in complex, changeable systems. You gain the best results when you pick what you’ll realistically follow, adjust as your life evolves, and forgive yourself for not always being a robot.

Look over your money routines and ask: am I trying to be a spreadsheet, or a human? If you’re tortured by a particular plan—even if it’s 'optimal'—swap instead for approaches that make you want to keep going. Allow for a few emotional considerations, like wanting more cash for comfort or choosing investments you actually care about. Be flexible about changing tack if it helps your consistency. Staying imperfectly in the game beats quitting the perfect strategy every time.