What if you could retire three years earlier, but it meant having $300,000 less in retirement savings? Would you do it?

There's no universally right answer to that question. But I think it's a useful way to look at how we make financial decisions.

We're so accustomed to measuring financial success by how much wealth we accumulate that it's easy to assume the decision that leaves us with the most money must be the best one.

But that's not always the case.

Think about some of the choices we face as we get older.

You could work another few years and build a larger retirement portfolio. Or retire earlier and enjoy more years of freedom while you're still healthy and energetic.

You could invest your surplus income and potentially grow your wealth further. Or use some of it to create experiences with your family that you might not have the same opportunity to enjoy later.

You could hold on to an investment to avoid a substantial capital gains tax bill. Or accept the tax cost to reduce your mortgage, simplify your finances or make an earlier retirement possible.

In each case, one option might leave you financially wealthier, while the other could make your life better.

And that's the distinction I think we sometimes overlook.

Of course, the numbers still matter. We need to understand what we can afford, what we're giving up and whether a decision could compromise our future financial security.

But once we understand those trade-offs, we can make choices based on what matters most to us, rather than simply which option produces the biggest number.

After all, most of us didn't start building wealth because we wanted to finish life with the largest possible investment portfolio.

We wanted the security, experiences, opportunities and freedom that money could provide.

Sometimes making the most of your money means being willing to have a little less of it.