Case: a one-page financial plan and the yearly review

The saving rate is the share of income you don't spend on living — the single number that says whether a year moved you forward:

saving rate = (income − essentials − flexible spending) ÷ income

Dana's actual year: income 394,800, essentials 262,800, flexible 61,200. Not spent: 394,800 − 324,000 = 70,800, so 70,800 ÷ 394,800 ≈ 17.93% — below the 20.50% she planned.

The sting is that she earned more than planned and still saved a smaller share, because flexible spending grew faster than income. That's why the rate matters more than the income figure: a bigger salary that's all spent leaves nothing behind. Measure it on income after tax and the social contribution, and read it next to the plan — a rate that drifts down year after year is the early warning a single month never gives.

The first half of a review is a line-by-line look at plan versus actual. The catch is that "worse" means different things for different lines:

• Spending lines are worse when above plan. Flexible ran 13,200 over (27.5%), essentials 8,400 over (3.3%).
• Saving lines are worse when below plan. Retirement came in 6,000 short, the flat pot 4,000 short.
• On plan is on plan: the cushion top-up (6,000) and the laptop (27,000) hit their targets exactly — not problems.

Read the gaps by size and by cause. The flexible overspend alone (13,200) is bigger than both saving shortfalls together, so that's the line to control next year. A line that's over because you chose to pause it (retirement in a thin summer) is different from one that crept up by itself — the first is a decision, the second is drift, and only drift needs a new rule.

Net worth is the scoreboard: what you own minus what you owe, on one day.

net worth = money + savings − debts

Count it on the first and last day of the year; the change is the year's score. Dana: 318,034 → 387,489, a jump of +69,455 (21.84%).

Two honest cautions. First, a simple net worth leaves out things you use — the laptop isn't in it, because it loses value and is hard to sell at a fair price. Money, savings and debts only. Second, read where the gain came from: of the 69,455, about 36,600 is money Dana added or debt she paid off, and 32,855 is growth on what was already there. And growth isn't all real: the kitchen pot earned about 15%, but after 8% inflation only about 6.5%. A rising number feels great; splitting it into contributions, real growth and inflation is what tells you the truth.

A yearly review runs in a fixed order, each step feeding the next:

1. Plan versus actual, line by line, including the saving rate — this explains what happened over the year.
2. Update net worth (money and savings minus debts) — this sums up where you now stand.
3. Check the cushion against this year's essentials, because it protects every other goal, and rising essentials quietly shrink how many months it covers.
4. Re-price goals and dates, and re-check every "as of" fact — rates, taxes, the minimum contribution, pension rules all drift.
5. Write next year's one-page plan and set the next review date.

The logic: understand the year before judging your position, secure the cushion before stretching for goals, refresh the facts before committing numbers. All of it lands on one page — the money plan — short enough that you'll actually read it, with its own review date so the cycle repeats.