The 1-4g/L Problem

I went for my regular blood donation this week, which happens once every three months. That's the time the body needs to replenish the red blood cells and restore the iron levels.

I followed the advised protocol of drinking at least 3 glasses of water (tbh I still don't know how many ml a glass is...) 3 hours prior and eat something savoury. I imagine that helps with water retention.

After I arrived at the blood donation centre, I completed the questionnaire as usual, and waited to be called for the health screening – basically taking your blood pressure and measuring your iron level, plus going through your questionnaire if there are anything of concern.

This week, for the first time in my over 30 blood donations, my haemoglobin/ iron level did not meet the required 130g/L level!

The nurse explained to me that the finger prick method is not as accurate and if I wanted to proceed, she will need to do another check at the donation reclining chair, but that would be via a small needle on the other arm that is not used for the donation, i.e. I would have two needles that day. Not concurrently of course. That reading would be more accurate and from my donation history, she didn't see why I would fail.

I agreed and followed her to the donation area. After some preparation, she came and drew some blood with a "cute" needle on my right arm – "cute" cos the needle for the actual donation is at least 1.5-2mm wide.

After a more elaborate process of drawing my blood for the test, she went off and took out some paper and scribbled something on it. I was wondering why the extra paperwork. She could be a professional poker player cos she showed nothing on her face about the result.

When she finally came back, she explained that I still did not meet the required haemoglobin level and would not be able to donate that day. The paper she filled up explained that my level did not meet the requirement and advised that I rest for two weeks and can try again then. And should I want to seek medical attention about the low haemoglobin/ iron level, I can bring the paper to the doctor.

Bummer! The very first time that I was "rejected" from donating my blood!

I didn't think much of not meeting the required level since it just missed by 1-4g/L. However the Wife thinks otherwise and demanded that I consult a doctor for it.

Here's what I missed: it wasn't about the 1-4g/L shortfall. It was about the pattern break.

Twenty-plus years, 30 donations, zero problems. Then number 33 fails and my instinct was "eh, probably just had a bad week." The Wife saw it differently: first-time deviation from a decades-long baseline = worth investigating now, not later.

She was right. Not because something's definitely wrong (I've got a doctor's appointment Tuesday to find out), but because optimists like me naturally dismiss small signals until they become big problems.

Same thing happens with retirement planning.

I'm wired to assume things will work out. In investing, this is brilliant – I don't panic-sell during market dips, I stay calm when others lose their heads, I've held through corrections that would've terrified pessimists into selling at the bottom.

But when my haemoglobin drops below threshold for the first time in 20 years, I think "it's just 1-4g/L – probably nothing." When my retirement savings falls $5,000 short of target, I think "it's just $5,000 - I'll catch up."

Both sound reasonable. Both ignore the pattern break. Both assume the deviation is random noise rather than a signal that something's changed.

The nurse handed me paperwork to take to a doctor. I genuinely wasn't planning to use it until the Wife insisted. Sound familiar? Like that financial advisor's report sitting in your inbox? The insurance review you've been meaning to schedule? The super allocation you keep postponing?

The paperwork exists because small deviations matter – often enough that ignoring them is reckless.

I catch myself thinking "saving $50 this week won't make a difference." And mathematically, for one week, it's true. But it's not about the $50. It's about the pattern. Skip it once because "it's too small to matter" and you'll skip it again. The pattern of saving becomes the pattern of not-quite-saving-enough.

My instinct was classic optimist logic: wait two weeks and try again. If the second test fails, then see a doctor. Why bother with appointments for something that's probably just a blip?

In investing, "wait and see" is brilliant. Market drops recover. But in retirement planning, "wait and see" means "wait until the problem is harder to fix."

Wait to start saving until your income is higher? You miss years of compound growth. Wait to review your super until you're "closer to retirement"? You miss the chance to adjust while there's still time. Wait to check insurance coverage? You find out it's inadequate when you need to claim.

I'm not stopping being an optimist – it's served me too well. But I'm learning that optimists need systems: automatic contributions so I can't talk myself out of "just $50," calendar reminders for annual reviews, a spouse who insists on doctor's appointments when patterns break, paperwork that forces decisions instead of deferrals.

Because the dangerous thing about optimism isn't the optimism itself – it's the blind spot it creates for small signals needing immediate attention.

The nurse's poker face told me nothing. The paperwork told me everything: this deviation warranted follow-up, even if the number looked small.

I've booked the appointment. The Wife will probably be proven right (she usually is, though I'm not admitting that in writing). And I'll learn whether this was genuinely "just a blip" or an early warning I would've ignored for months.

In the meantime, I'm looking at that retirement savings shortfall with fresh eyes. Maybe it's not "just $5,000." Maybe it's the first failed test in a pattern I need to investigate now.

Turns out, the little foxes really do spoil the vine – but only if you're too optimistic to fix the fence while the hole is still small.

Your Turn:
What "small signal" have you been dismissing in your retirement planning because the number feels too insignificant to matter?
When was the last time your natural optimism about "catching up later" prevented you from addressing a problem while it was still fixable?
And if someone who knows you well suggested you investigate something you think is "probably nothing," did you listen?

👉 Hit reply and share your thoughts – I’d love to hear what’s resonating with you.

☕ If this uncomfortable reflection made you rethink your own "it's just 1-4g/L" assumptions, consider buying L-Plate Retiree a coffee on Ko-fi. These self-aware admissions don't write themselves – they require caffeine, honesty, and the willingness to admit my wife was right (again).

The Enemy Within – Cognitive Biases

We've built a solid portfolio on paper, but the biggest threat to your investment success isn't a market crash or a rogue government – it's the person staring back at you in the mirror! Behavioral Finance studies how our human psychology affects our investment decisions, and it turns out we are often our own worst enemies.

Traditional finance assumes investors are rational, but behavioral finance recognizes that we are driven by cognitive biases – systematic errors in thinking that affect the decisions and judgments that people make.

The most powerful of these is Loss Aversion. Simply put, the pain of a loss is psychologically about twice as powerful as the pleasure of an equivalent gain. This bias leads to two very costly mistakes:

1. Holding onto Losers: You hold onto a stock that has dropped in value, hoping it will "come back," just to avoid realizing the loss. This is often called "riding a loser."

2. Selling Winners Too Early: You sell a stock that has gone up quickly to "lock in the gain," even though it might have more room to run.

Both actions violate the fundamental principle of disciplined investing, which is to let your winners run and cut your losers short. Loss aversion makes you do the opposite!

Another common bias is Confirmation Bias, where you seek out information that confirms your existing beliefs and ignore anything that contradicts them. If you believe the market is about to crash, you'll only read articles that agree with you, potentially missing out on a recovery.

Cultural Variations: While these biases are universal, their intensity varies. In collectivist cultures, Herding (the tendency to follow the crowd) may be more pronounced. In cultures with a history of high inflation, investors may have a lower tolerance for financial risk, even if their economic circumstances suggest otherwise.

The key takeaway is that you must recognize these biases in yourself. The first step to overcoming them is admitting you have a problem!

L-Plate Takeaways:

• You are the Biggest Risk: Your own psychology is the biggest threat to your investment success.

• Loss Aversion is Powerful: The pain of a loss is twice the pleasure of a gain, leading you to hold onto losers and sell winners too early.

• Confirmation Bias: Don't just read what you want to hear. Actively seek out contradictory evidence to challenge your beliefs.

• Herding: Avoid following the crowd. If everyone is doing it, it's probably too late.

• The IPS is Your Defense: Your Investment Policy Statement is your best tool for making rational decisions before your emotions take over.