The Perfect Life Portfolio

About a decade ago, I attended the funeral of a close relative. During the ceremony, several moving testimonies were shared about this person. Listening to them, I began to ask myself what would be said about me if that were my funeral. That question lingered long after the event and quietly launched me into a year-long depression as I tried to figure out the essence of my life. Fast forward a decade later, and here’s what I wish I understood at the time.

Back then, I was searching for a single, grand purpose—one thing that would define the meaning of my life. I thought fulfilment had to come from a singular pursuit, a perfect career, or one big impact. But over the years, I’ve come to see that life isn’t fulfilled through one expression alone; it’s lived through a portfolio of purposes. Just as in finance, where a healthy portfolio balances different asset classes, a meaningful life balances different kinds of relationships and contributions. Some of these are transactional, tied to work and achievement; others are non-transactional, tied to love and service. Together, they form what I now call the perfect life portfolio.

I believe humans were designed for two kinds of contributions:

1. Transactional – trade, investments, enterprise
2. Non-transactional – parenting, public service, social impact

This aligns with Will Storr’s concept of Status Games, where transactional relationships correspond to Success Games and non-transactional relationships to Virtue Games. Both together form what Storr calls Prestige—the status society confers on those who contribute meaningfully to the collective good.

In transactional relationships, we negotiate the reciprocal value of our actions—an “eye for an eye.” These include trade, investments, and enterprise—the domain of business. The laws of economics govern this world, and success depends on one’s ability to create and exchange value that others can reciprocate in tangible form.

Non-transactional relationships, however, operate on a subtler ethic. Reciprocity still exists, but the giver doesn’t negotiate it. A parent may find joy, social value, or eventual support from a child, but such returns cannot be demanded or measured. Similarly, while soldiers are paid, no sum can equal the willingness to lay down one’s life for others. These are glimpses of the countless non-transactional contributions that enrich the human story.

I now see a link between these two forms of contribution and the brain’s feel-good hormones. Transactional or success games are powered by dopamine—the chemistry of pursuit and reward. Non-transactional or virtue games are powered by oxytocin—the chemistry of connection and care. Both are necessary; both sustain the fullness of human happiness.

Jesus alluded to this duality in His teaching on perfection in Matthew 5 and 6. He contrasted the ethic of reciprocity—“An eye for an eye”—with the ethic of grace—“Turn the other cheek.” The first belongs to the transactional realm; the second, to the non-transactional. Jesus wasn’t rejecting the transactional order but transcending it, showing that true perfection arises from holding achievement and grace, reciprocity and generosity, in balance.

Abraham Maslow described something similar in his hierarchy of needs. At the top sits self-actualisation—the fulfilment of one’s potential. Yet Maslow later added a higher level: self-transcendence—the state reached when one moves beyond self-interest into service to something greater. This explains the phenomenon of second careers—altruistic pursuits people often take on after achieving professional success. They realise that life’s highest fulfilment lies not only in what they gain, but in what they give.

Interestingly, people’s greatest regrets at life’s end often center on how effectively they lived out both self-actualisation and self-transcendence. And long before death, many feel that same restlessness—the pull to both achieve and to belong. For much of history, society divided these expressions by gender: men pursued success, women embodied virtue. In a survival-driven world, this division made sense. But today, as survival grows less threatened, both men and women yearn to express the full spectrum of being—to build and to nurture, to achieve and to love.

Everyone should have the right and opportunity to participate freely in both realms. No one should be penalised for choosing one over the other. A woman who leads in business should be as affirmed as a man who chooses to nurture and care. The essence of equality is not sameness—it is freedom of balance: the liberty to express both the striving and the giving sides of our humanity.

I don’t see these two realms as opposites but as the Yin and Yang of fulfilment—complementary forces that, together, make us whole.

How Should I Manage My Portfolio?

While I don’t have strict prescriptions, I’ve found it helpful to learn from some of the world’s most successful portfolio managers—in both finance and life.

Two such men, Ray Dalio (founder of Bridgewater Associates) and David Rubenstein (founder of The Carlyle Group), categorise life into three broad phases:

1. The Learning Phase – where one develops the skills, character, and competence for contribution (often adolescence and early adulthood).
2. The Earning Phase – where one deploys those skills to create value and receive fair remuneration.
3. The Giving Phase – where one channels accumulated wealth, wisdom, and experience toward others.

This pattern mirrors what many high achievers follow—from finance executives to tech entrepreneurs. Tristan Walker, CEO of Walker & Company, once shared that he received similar advice early in his career. Yet, like Mark Zuckerberg, he now lives with a healthy blend of earning and giving, even in his prime. Bill Gates, on the other hand, transitioned almost completely into his giving phase, with many others joining his Giving Pledge.

As for me, I’ve decided to live with a balanced portfolio from my youth—to contribute in both the reciprocal and the non-reciprocal markets. I want to build and to bless, to earn and to serve, to live with both dopamine and oxytocin in harmony.