From the earliest stages of life, we are primed to think about work. As children, we are told to study hard, to perform well, to pursue certain qualifications. The structure of formal education, the advice of our parents, and even the norms of our culture are all geared toward a singular outcome: becoming employable. The ultimate prize is income. Work is positioned not just as a contribution to society or a personal calling, but primarily as a way to earn a living. 

But the purpose of that income extends beyond the here and now. While part of it is meant to address immediate needs; meals, rent, transportation, social obligations, another part must deal with obligations that are further off: education for our children, major health expenditures, a home of our own, or the ability to live with dignity after retirement. In economic terms, a significant portion of labour is actually done in anticipation of future expenditure. The central financial challenge of adult life, then, is how to move some of today’s income into the future. 

This is, fundamentally, what savings and investment are meant to do. They are not about luxury or surplus. They are the infrastructure through which you reallocate purchasing power over time. Yet in the absence of structured planning or disciplined accumulation, most future costs are either handled poorly or not at all. 

In the absence of savings, people turn to reactive measures. They borrow, sometimes at exorbitant rates. They liquidate assets under pressure, often below value. They delay or downgrade their plans, shifting children to less costly schools or abandoning property developments. In many cases, they simply absorb the financial shock by cutting consumption or postponing other goals.  

The most sustainable way to deal with future costs is to build for them in advance. But this raises a new question: how should one go about doing this? The methods vary widely. 

Some people rely on informal savings groups or SACCOs, which offer regular discipline and community reinforcement. Others use mobile money wallets or fixed deposit accounts to stash money away. Land is a popular option, perceived as safe and appreciating. A few turn to government bonds, or personal businesses. Even fewer might also access to equities, real estate, and insurance. 

Each of these vehicles has its own characteristics. SACCOs offer yield but can be illiquid or poorly governed. Mobile savings are accessible but often yield little or no interest. Land appreciates but is hard to sell when cash is urgently needed. Government securities provide stability and decent returns but come with time locks. Businesses can generate high returns but also carry high risk of failure and require a lot of time to manage. 

Most people, when faced with these options, make a decision about where to place their money by asking a single question: which one offers the highest return? It's an understandable instinct, after all, more return seems to mean more value. Investors in this mindset are constantly comparing rates: 10% in this SACCO, 12% in this bond, 15% if I buy land in the right location. There is often no clear articulation of what the money is for, or when it will be needed. The assumption is that a high enough return will take care of any goal. But this assumption is not necessarily true. While higher returns can increase the total value of an investment, they often come with trade-offs: less liquidity, higher risk, or mismatched timelines. Consider a parent who invests in land because it promises the highest return. When school fees become due, they may find the land cannot be sold quickly enough, or only at a steep discount. Similarly, someone who locks funds in a fixed deposit to earn a higher rate might incur penalties if they need to withdraw early for an emergency. A small business investment might offer the possibility of double-digit gains, but also carries the risk of failure, particularly if the investor has no time or expertise to manage it. 

In these situations, the pursuit of return can undermine the ability to meet the actual financial need. The investment may look strong on paper but fails in practice because it cannot deliver the right value at the right time. 

The limitations of a return-first approach open the door to an alternative. Instead of beginning with return, one can start with purpose of the investment, the goal. It begins by asking: what is the purpose of this money? When will I need it? What level of risk can I afford between now and then? Only after these questions are answered does the investor ask what return is required to achieve the goal.  

Return is still part of the equation, but it is not the starting point. It is a derived requirement, not an end in itself. 

The two approaches reflect different philosophies, and neither is intrinsically right or wrong. But their implications diverge in meaningful ways. A return-first approach can lead to investments that, while impressive on paper, are poorly suited to real-world demands. Goal-based investing may yield lower theoretical returns, but it offers a greater chance that the money will be there when it's needed, in the form it’s needed.  

The critical insight is that financial outcomes are not just a product of returns. They are the result of alignment, between the asset, the time horizon, and the real-world need. When those elements are out of sync, even a high-performing investment can turn out to be the wrong one. An asset may deliver excellent returns, but if it cannot be accessed at the right time or without significant cost, it fails to serve its intended purpose. After all, the point of investing is not simply to grow money in the abstract, but to ensure that it is available and usable when the need for which it was being put aside arrives. 

In the end, most people do not accumulate wealth for its own sake. They do it to pay for things: education, healthcare, housing, retirement. The real question is whether their strategy for building that wealth recognises the form and timing of those expenses. 

Good financial planning does not eliminate uncertainty. But it can reduce it to manageable proportions. It does this not by chasing the highest possible return, but by asking the right questions in the right order. What is this money for? When will I need it? How can I get it there safely? 

That is the difference between hoping your investments will deliver and knowing they will.