Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and others

[Chops9]

I cant believe some people are so negative on the topic. I think the two would have made it in these tough times, they might not have made it quite as big due to not being in the right place at the right time but would have still been a success.

These days there is the same chance to get ahead just not in the same areas. There is bound to be some sort of way of making buckets of cash off changing to face of the high street. Another could be improving current businesses such as farming in the UK, factory farming is huge in the US but the UK doesnt even have one, I read about a guy applying for planning for one.

Look at innocent smoothies it's a new enough company and coke bought it off the founders for millions, the guys that set it up just put a new spin on smoothies and had fresh ideas.

You need hard work, persistence, a bit of luck and these guys had loads of it (it's a lot easier said than done!)

[Manks]

Tuna said:

The richest guy I know (top 20 UK rich list) made his money by delivering on time, on budget and to spec when very few others in the industry could manage it. No fraud, no illegal practises, just good business.

How do you know this?

[Simpo Two]

Chops9 said:

I cant believe some people are so negative on the topic. I think the two would have made it in these tough times, they might not have made it quite as big due to not being in the right place at the right time but would have still been a success.

I do wonder what Zuckerberg would have done if the internet hadn't been invented. The explosive life-changing world-changing power of the internet has made many people rich (though that money comes indirectly from the rest of us). Put them in 1880. Would they be Thomas Edison or just chimney sweeps?

[Tuna]

Manks said:

Tuna said:

The richest guy I know (top 20 UK rich list) made his money by delivering on time, on budget and to spec when very few others in the industry could manage it. No fraud, no illegal practises, just good business.

How do you know this?

I think I was employee number seven, worked with him for a number of years. Saw how he did business, and where the money came from.

It's fascinating that other people's wealth seems to be such a big deal to some.

[NorthDave]

There seems to be an assumption on here that the majority of people who have made money are doing something bad to get it (be it immoral or illegal). The vast majority are just better at doing something than anyone else.

[Digga]

NorthDave said:

There seems to be an assumption on here that the majority of people who have made money are doing something bad to get it (be it immoral or illegal). The vast majority are just better at doing something than anyone else.

I think you're correct, although what I think Manks (and certainly I) were intimating was that just because there's brass, doesn't neccessarily mean there's not a whole lot of (sometimes very nasty) muck behind the scenes.

People can be wowed by moneyed individuals to the piont that they ignore very significant flaws.

[bigandclever]

NorthDave said:

There seems to be an assumption on here that the majority of people who have made money are doing something bad to get it (be it immoral or illegal). The vast majority are just better at doing something than anyone else.

In a strawpoll of one (me) I can categorically state that the 2 billionaires I know did a variety of illegal things (white collar, lying to the markets and the banks kind of things), they were caught, and they were punished. But they're still billionaires (although I'd argue they're not entrepreneurial).

[Manks]

Tuna said:

Manks said:

Tuna said:

The richest guy I know (top 20 UK rich list) made his money by delivering on time, on budget and to spec when very few others in the industry could manage it. No fraud, no illegal practises, just good business.

How do you know this?

I think I was employee number seven, worked with him for a number of years. Saw how he did business, and where the money came from.

Then you would never know, frankly, the nitty gritty of his affairs. Only what you saw. There are people very close to me, who I have worked with for over ten years, and there are plenty of things they don't know. Nothing especially dodgy, I might add, but things that it doesn't suit me for them to know.

Tuna said:

It's fascinating that other people's wealth seems to be such a big deal to some.

Yes, isn't it. That can be for a variety of reasons I think. Jealousy often. But sometimes because people want to know how to emulate that person.

It came a bit hard to a younger me, however, when I found out that some of the people I admired did things I didn't approve of to get where they did.

To use Branson as an example, he got caught fiddling tax. He has gone on record admitting that drugs were dealt out his record shops. His arline, almost certainly with his knowlegde, was price fixing. It seems very likely, then, that he has been up to all sorts of other things that he has not been busted for.

And this is to some degree what I was talking about earlier. Most people look for rules to follow, but most hugely successful people I know anything about assume that rules don't apply to them. They seem to get away with this mindset most of the time, in part because society as a whole rarely wants to undo that which has been done. Especially when things like job losses may be the result.

[Digga]

[quote=Manks

Tuna said:

It's fascinating that other people's wealth seems to be such a big deal to some.

Yes, isn't it. That can be for a variety of reasons I think. Jealousy often. But sometimes because people want to know how to emulate that person.

And this is the nub of that particualr issue - it's the sort of 'keeping up with the Jones" type interest.

The GFC has, as Buffet predicted, seen the tide ebb out allowing us to see who's been swimming naked. Locally, a lot of flash casrs and houses have suddenly been surrendered by some of the got-rich-quicks.

Equally these days, I am very aware of friends and acquaintances who are very wealthy indeed but do not (perhaps deliberately) let anyone know - houses and cars are totally unremarkable compared to their overall wealth.

I also have a friend (who lives in a nice 1930's semi and drives a van) collared me a few years back to ask for help with raising finance for a business opportunity. he didn't need money, just advice on getting a business mortgage. He and his family own a significant amount of land and machinery all of which has zero finance on it. They got a mortgage (for the new venture) without the slightest bother in the depths of the GFC. Yet very few other people who know the guy realise he's worth anything at all.

[Manks]

Digga said:

nd this is the nub of that particualr issue - it's the sort of 'keeping up with the Jones" type interest.

The GFC has, as Buffet predicted, seen the tide ebb out allowing us to see who's been swimming naked. Locally, a lot of flash casrs and houses have suddenly been surrendered by some of the got-rich-quicks.

Equally these days, I am very aware of friends and acquaintances who are very wealthy indeed but do not (perhaps deliberately) let anyone know - houses and cars are totally unremarkable compared to their overall wealth.

I also have a friend (who lives in a nice 1930's semi and drives a van) collared me a few years back to ask for help with raising finance for a business opportunity. he didn't need money, just advice on getting a business mortgage. He and his family own a significant amount of land and machinery all of which has zero finance on it. They got a mortgage (for the new venture) without the slightest bother in the depths of the GFC. Yet very few other people who know the guy realise he's worth anything at all.

There seems to be no correlation between wealth and apparent wealth. There are wealthy people who live very low-key lives and others who are a bit flash.

Slightly off-topic, but I did a deal with an old Polish chap a couple of days ago. On the face of it he is a poor, frail old man. But he is actually quite wealthy as a result of a long life, good pension and a lottery win!.

[Manks]

coyft said:

I'd agree to some extent although there is a world of difference between bending/breaking rules and criminal activity. Rule followers do not build exceptional businesses.

Sure. But then there's criminal activity and criminal activity. By which I mean, criminal activity that is the core business and low-level criminal activity peripheral to it.

I can think of one chap, household name, who started his life stealing and selling large, expensive items. He progressed to construction where his core business was legitmate, but some of the periphery was dodgy. Right now, as far as I am aware, his interests are mostly legitimate. He is very rich.

[Digga]

One of my parents neighbours is a case in point. He actualy was wealthy but he really wanted everyone to know it. I can remember as a kid in the late 70's early 80's he'd get a brand new S-Class every year with a new personalised plate for the year; xxx 78 in 1978 to xxx81 in 1981 etc. and he also had one of those hideous (but definitely real) diamond encrusted Rolex watches.

He was a bore - I often think Harry Enfield's self-made Midlander really was modelled on him - and most people tollerated him despite his abominable manners and character simply because he was wealthy. When he came to dinner he always made some pointed, unsubtle remark about our (good quality but admitedly haphazard) non-matching dinner service, so my mother used to deliberately give him the sttiest chipped plate in the house to get her own back. My wife simply loathed him and avoided contact as far as possible.

He was interesting nontheless, and was happy to hold forth on how his network of businesses allowed him to keep ahead of the taxman and skim off (he was in metal plating, so the scope for dodgy deals was huge and I think where the Rolex came in) for personal gain.

Ultimately he was a nihilist though and didn't enjoy a long retirement because he drank himslef to death. His widdow has spent the last few years playing catch-up and is likely to follow sadly.

[Andrew[MG]]

I wrote this the other day....

With news today that JJB has finally collapsed, it’s worth taking a look back at other companies that Tom Hunter has been involved with or sold businesses to that have also subsequently collapsed. I’m not saying he is bad at business (he was Scotland’s first billionaire after all) but once he has sold a company they seem to have a knack of going bust.

• Sports Division sold to JJB – Bust
• Qube – bust
• Office – sold, went bust and rebuilt without debts
• USC – sold, went bust and rebuilt without debts
• D2 – bust
• Rangers FC – tried twice to buy them and they went bust
• Travelodge – owns a portfolio of their properties and they have just agreed rent cuts due to them being in difficulties

So what does this record say about Tom? Is he cursed?

[Andrew[MG]]

coyft said:

He's better at running the business than the people he's sold it to?
He realised the business had reach it's maximum potential and sold it at the top?
He is an excellent businessman?

I was more thinking that he knows how to build revenue but not profit?
He knows how to sell lemons to idiots?
He knows how to frame an investment so that it will tick all the boxes for investment funds?

[Digga]

coyft said:

Andrew[MG] said:

coyft said:

He's better at running the business than the people he's sold it to?
He realised the business had reach it's maximum potential and sold it at the top?
He is an excellent businessman?

I was more thinking that he knows how to build revenue but not profit?
He knows how to sell lemons to idiots?
He knows how to frame an investment so that it will tick all the boxes for investment funds?

The answer lies in his bank balance. Isn't that what being a successful businessman is about, maximising profit?

Certainly a lot of the high flyers will always say that one of the highest priorities they have when starting a business is knowing exactly how, where and when they exit.

[Tuna]

Andrew[MG] said:

I wrote this the other day....

With news today that JJB has finally collapsed, it’s worth taking a look back at other companies that Tom Hunter has been involved with or sold businesses to that have also subsequently collapsed. I’m not saying he is bad at business (he was Scotland’s first billionaire after all) but once he has sold a company they seem to have a knack of going bust.

• Sports Division sold to JJB – Bust
• Qube – bust
• Office – sold, went bust and rebuilt without debts
• USC – sold, went bust and rebuilt without debts
• D2 – bust
• Rangers FC – tried twice to buy them and they went bust
• Travelodge – owns a portfolio of their properties and they have just agreed rent cuts due to them being in difficulties

So what does this record say about Tom? Is he cursed?

Relatively few businesses last that long. Think of all the high street stores that have come and gone, and how many have been badly hit by the last few years. Add in the vast transformations industries have gone through in the last few decades and is it really a surprise?

Probably more important is that the skills needed to build a business are very different from those needed to keep it going. The clever builders move on, and leave it to maintainers to keep businesses going - or not.

[Talksteer]

Simpo Two said:

I do wonder what Zuckerberg would have done if the internet hadn't been invented. The explosive life-changing world-changing power of the internet has made many people rich (though that money comes indirectly from the rest of us). Put them in 1880. Would they be Thomas Edison or just chimney sweeps?

I think Zuckerberg is something of anomaly, Facebook was something of an accidental creation and due to the highly scalable nature of the idea it could be set up and grown with limited resources and even limited technical skill.

However many of the other owners and founders of the 1970s generation of silicon valley were highly skilled people and in most cases hobbyists. Hence aside from the ones you've heard of many of the early silicon valley people ended up being early shareholders in companies which turned out to be worth billions.

I would argue that these people's technical skillset would have probably made them persons of significance in any of the industrial revolutions.

Edison is an interesting comparison because he sums up.the argument about its not about the idea its about the execution (sometimes literally in his case). Edisons innovations were the product of an experiment factory the worlds first research lab. Edison himself wasn't actually that proficient a theorist like Tesla he worked by experimentation, Edisons methods wouldn't actually work to well today but his skill in driving a team probably would.

[mybrainhurts]

BigBen said:

Muzzer79 said:

mybrainhurts said:

Sugar is expert at stuffing his shareholders. I put £2000 in and he turned it into £200 before I could blink.

As for anything else, tell me one product of his that succeeded.

Seriously?

I am watching TV via an Amstrad manufactured Sky+ box as are most other Sky subscribers.

Loads of people had Amstrad VCRs, HiFi equipment, Word Processors in the 1980s all successful. In fact the e-mail telephone is the only significant failure I can think of.

Sure he has made money from property but from what I can see property he bought as a result of success in his core trading businesses rather than as his principal source of wealth.

Ben

He got screwed over by Sky when they withdrew his contract to manufacture Sky boxes. That was his only product at the time. He ought to have seen that one coming.

By successful products, I mean enduring products. He kept getting ideas, putting them into production, then losing the plot.

When he got into PCs, I thought he'd cracked something big. That was when I put £2000 in, which he promptly turned into £200 as he lost the plot again.

I have to admit he's expert at screwing his shareholders, but he probably had an army of advisers to guide him along that devious path.

So, Lord Superspiv it is, then.

[Dave_ITR]

All in my opinion of course but....
Branson without a doubt would be very successful.
Sugar, not a chance. Got seriously lucky with property prices and not a great deal else.

[bogie]

im sure in 20 years time, people will review the sucess stories once more and rationalise why they wouldnt be sucessful again

in the meanwhile those that are sucessful dont come up with excuses or try to rationalise their own failures, they look forward and persevere with their business, believing that they will be sucessful one day