[JohnFen]

I've started about a half dozen companies over the decades, half of which were successful, profitable enterprises.

For all of them, I started with no safety net at all. Sometimes I had a side job (if you're starting a business, your business must be your main job and anything else is your side gig), sometimes I had an investor, and sometimes I white-knuckled it. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to each approach.

Except for when I had an investor or side gig, I arranged my business so that it would generate some income from day one (that income being from efforts that were not what the business was attempting to do, but could leverage the same assets -- this was usually contract work. This is part of a business rule I believe very strongly in: anything you do should pay you in more than one way.)

That said, I'm currently preparing to start a new venture, and this time I'm building up a bankroll first, as I'm of the age where my risk tolerance is lower than it was when I was younger. My target bankroll is $100,000. That is money I can burn, and doesn't count retirement, personal savings, etc. $100,000 would let me work on the business without any additional income for two years.

[Kareem71]

Intresting, do you mind me asking what age you are at that made you feel like you need that large of a bank roll first?

[JohnFen]

I'm in my late 50s.

I'm choosing to have a largish bankroll this time because, quite frankly, I don't want to have to make the sacrifices that are otherwise likely when you don't have an ongoing income -- and during the initial stages of a business, you won't have a meaningful income personally, it will be going into the business.

I could get by without the bankroll, as I've done before, but this time I want a little bit more comfort.

I should add that this is because of how I prefer to do business -- I am unwilling to take debt, large investments or VC money. Not that there's anything wrong with doing those things -- they just don't mesh well with my personality.