Why More Founders Need a Personal Wealth Strategy
Rebecca Klodinsky built two wildly successful brands from scratch. Now she’s urging fellow founders to take their personal wealth as seriously as their business growth.
3 min
When I launched my first business in my twenties, I thought success meant sales, scale, and building a brand with cut-through. And to some extent, it did.
But it took me a little longer to realise that real success — the kind that sustains you beyond your startup — also means financial independence. Not just revenue. Not just growth. But wealth.
We don’t talk about this enough. Founders are often so focused on cash flow, growth targets and reinvesting in the business that they neglect their own financial future.
And for women in particular, that can be a costly blind spot — especially in a climate like this.
Right now, the cost of living is at record highs. Inflation is steadily eroding savings. And Australian women are still retiring with, on average, 25% less superannuation than men. Financial literacy is no longer a nice-to-have — it’s a survival skill.
And founders, of all people, should be thinking about how they’re building wealth personally — not just professionally.
When I started my first business, I was a young solo mum navigating life without a blueprint — financially or otherwise. I didn’t grow up talking about money. I didn’t have a financial adviser on speed dial.
But I taught myself. I bought property. I built multiple income streams. I started investing. And I did it all while bootstrapping.
What I learned is this: you don’t need to be a finance expert to build wealth. But you do need to get intentional about it. Because if your personal finances aren’t growing with your business, you’re more exposed than you think.
Here are three things I’ve learned that I now believe every founder should factor into their strategy:
Wealth is the long game, and revenue isn’t enough
There’s a big difference between making money and building wealth. Your business might generate strong revenue, but if you’re not pulling money out, protecting it, and putting it to work, you’re still operating from a place of risk. I learned to treat my personal finances like a second business — with goals, structure, and long-term thinking. That shift was a turning point.
Diversification applies to life, not just portfolios
As founders, we know the risk of relying on a single product or market. The same logic applies to your personal income. One revenue stream — even a thriving one — is still one point of failure. I started looking for ways to build parallel income early: investing in markets, creating digital assets, and adding secondary product lines. That strategy gave me freedom, not just extra income.
Financial literacy makes you a better founder
The more confident I became with money — understanding debt, interest, returns, tax — the sharper my decision-making got. It wasn’t about becoming an expert.
It was about building fluency. Knowing my numbers gave me leverage — in negotiations, in team conversations, and in moments of pressure. It made me more resilient and more resourceful.
We often hear about “closing the gap” in funding, leadership, and opportunity. But there’s another gap we rarely acknowledge: the financial confidence gap.
And it starts with founders — especially women — being willing to prioritise their own wealth as part of their growth story.
You don’t need to have it all figured out. But you do need to start. Because the goal isn’t just to build a successful business — it’s to build a life that gives you freedom, security, and options long after the business has scaled.
Rebecca Klodinsky is the founder of IIXIIST and co-founder of The Prestwick Place, two multi-million dollar brands built without investors or retail stores. Known for her sharp digital strategy and sustainable, direct-to-consumer approach, she continues to rewrite the rules of modern luxury
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
Limited to 630 units, Lamborghini’s latest Urus Capsule pushes personalisation further than ever, blending hybrid performance with over 70 bespoke design combinations.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
3 minFor decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy.
What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored.
Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.
Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed.
And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.
More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards.
That distinction matters.
For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process.
But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now.
The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up.
Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.
Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery.
The result is a system under pressure from all angles.
Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere.
Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.
The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system.
This is where the uncomfortable question emerges.
Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth?
As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself.
But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable.
It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either.
Nowhere is this more evident than in housing.
The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing.
Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment.
This brings the policy debate into sharper focus.
Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time.
That is the paradox.
Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving.
It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool.
Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation.
So where does that leave Australia?
At a crossroads.
The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth.
The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline.
But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity.
The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky.
It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out.
Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.
Once a sleepy surf town, Noosa has become Australia’s prestige property hotspot, where multi-million dollar knockdowns, architectural showpieces and record-setting sales are the new normal.
Barnet, in North London, lays claim to two of the country’s most expensive roads to own a home.
