Financial stability is a relative term.

Deeming a person or entity to be “financially stable” is relative. The most common iteration of this judgment is based on total income. The higher one’s income, the more financially stable they are perceived to be. But this is not a reliable metric. The lottery is a prime example of this. Lottery winners are more likely to declare bankruptcy within three to five years of winning than the average American. It can be generally agreed that this does not rise to the threshold of financial stability despite the possession of large sums of money. On the other side, there are a growing number of “everyday millionaires” who, through strategic and dedicated money management, achieve savings of $1 million or more on modest salaries with little-to-no liabilities on their books. The same applies to business. Multinational conglomerates are viewed as highly stable entities, yet they’re often the first to “lay off” hundreds of employees in the name of “downsizing” and “streamlining operations” which in my unique view are euphemisms for compensating for poor financial management. Meanwhile, many businesses literally run on quarters and dollar bills (such as laundromats and vending machine networks), earning 6-figure incomes year over year.

Financial stability has very little to do with volume. Therefore, one cannot predict the result of a lucrative opportunity based on quantity alone. The result will more reliably come from the person or entity’s ability to manage the quantity — however small or large — in a sustainable fashion. Anyone can make $1 million. Keeping $1 million — or turning it into $2 million or $10 million — is something else entirely as it’s not about what you can attain but what you can maintain in all regards that is most notable.