What sets a billionaire businessman apart??
Discussion
Wacky Racer said:
sleep envy said:
Wacky Racer said:
Mike Ashley
was he ever a billionaire and is being successful in one deal really setting him apart from the rest?http://www.joinmust.org/forum/showthread.php?t=433...
if that's the case many people could call themselves millionaires but it's far from the truth
k off.Read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell (same guy who wrote The Tipping Point).
It explains how a lot of very succesful people were in the right industry at the right time. But also the huge amount of hard work put in by all succesful people. It's a very good read.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Outliers-Story-Success-Mal...
It explains how a lot of very succesful people were in the right industry at the right time. But also the huge amount of hard work put in by all succesful people. It's a very good read.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Outliers-Story-Success-Mal...
Wacky Racer said:
From a normal reasonably successful one....
I was meaning people like, Richard Branson, Philip Green, Bernie Ecclestone, Mike Ashley, Warren Buffett, Ken Morrison, Roman Abramovich, Rupert Murdoch, Sergey Brin etc.
Do they just have more drive, ambition, brains, guts, common sense or what??
It's surely a bit like doing the lottery isn't it? If a million people start their own business then a few of them will be very successful. I was meaning people like, Richard Branson, Philip Green, Bernie Ecclestone, Mike Ashley, Warren Buffett, Ken Morrison, Roman Abramovich, Rupert Murdoch, Sergey Brin etc.
Do they just have more drive, ambition, brains, guts, common sense or what??
Those names could be almost any random person. What you don't hear so much about is the hundreds of thousands of people who crash and burn.
Plotloss said:
Crime.
yeah - funny enough Richard Branson doesn't mention his little early run in with Customs and Excise much does he?Thing I dont get with Branson with the exception of Virgin Music and the Airline - everything the guy has been involved with has turned to sh*t
As summarised by the Guardian:
Since he started Student magazine in 1967, Branson's searing ambition and personality has lured friends, entrepreneurs and established corporations to believe they can always earn fortunes by their attachment to him. Fuelled by the self-made tycoon's incessant self-glorification and ferocious publicity campaigns, the headline successes over the years have sustained the myth of invincibility.
Virgin Music - started amid a sophisticated purchase-tax fraud that Branson admitted in 1971 - was sold in 1992 for a record £560m. That money sustained Virgin Atlantic, the airline started in 1984 with a single, old Boeing 747. In 1999, when Branson sold a 49% stake of the airline to Singapore Airlines to relieve a financial squeeze, he valued the business at £1.2bn.
But beyond those two outstanding successes is a history of failed enterprises, which might have cautioned NTL. Virgin Cola, hailed by Branson in 1994 as the inevitable successor to Coca-Cola, has practically disappeared. Virgin Clothes, launched on the stock exchange in 1996, folded with losses to shareholders. Virgin Money was launched with a glitzy advertisement of Branson emerging naked from the sea, but did not deliver the expected big financial rewards. Then came Virgin Vie, Virgin Vision, Virgin Vodka, Virgin Wine, Virgin Jeans, Virgin Brides, Virgin Cosmetics and Virgin Cars - none fulfilling their creator's inflated dreams.
Other disappointments were truly painful. Virgin Express, an airline based in Brussels, was intended to rival easyJet, but the original investors on the stock market lost money. Similarly, the McCarthy brothers, who invested over £30m in V2, Branson's second music company, lost all their money and, unable even to pay the milkman, faced personal bankruptcy. Australians who invested in the 2003 flotation of Virgin Blue, an audacious, no-frills airline, rewarded Branson with over £200m for a stake of his original investment. Initially the airline was successful, but soon after Branson pocketed the money, shareholders watched the share price fall.
His ventures have also included two catastrophes. Virgin Rail was Branson's big dream. For years he had campaigned in Westminster about the advantages of privatising the rail network. Branson posed as the socially acceptable capitalist, able to offer cheap, modern and reliable rail travel without government subsidies. His promises were not fulfilled. Virgin Rail remains dependent on state money, aggressively protects its monopoly, and is subject to innumerable passenger complaints. The company's history damaged the Virgin brand and Branson's reputation as a reliable entrepreneur, the capitalist with a social conscience.
By 2000, Branson believed that the catalogue of disappointments was behind him. In a millennium lecture in Oxford, he confessed that winning the national lottery licence remained his major, lifetime's ambition. His reason was simple. That year, all his businesses other than the state-protected monopolies in airlines and rail, were losing money. His assiduous promotion of a People's Lottery and his overt support for Tony Blair, Branson believed, could secure his dream on his second attempt. His ambitions are not solely altruistic.
Possessing the lottery licence would bequeath a vast cash flow in management fees and endless free publicity to Virgin by association while Branson anointed the lottery's millionaires. By controlling the lottery, Branson would never again need to bother with dicey enterprises like cola, clothes, cosmetics or even mobile phones. Most important, he would reverse the crushing humiliation he suffered by two rejections.
Convinced by his own genius, Branson had been shattered in 1994 to be told that his bid for the lottery was not only unsuccessful but rated poorly compared with his competitors. He was infuriated by the regulator's decision.
Two years later he launched a libel writ against Guy Snowden, the American mastermind of Camelot, the winner. Snowden was accused by Branson of offering him a bribe. When Snowden denied this, Branson successfully sued for defamation. Regardless of the merits, Branson's pursuit of Snowden, long after Camelot's success was established, suggested to his critics a nastier side of the tycoon's character. Snowden was classed among those who had initially been attracted to sup with the legendary businessman, only to find himself to be his victim.
That view about Branson influenced the strange events following the original award of the lottery licence in 2000 to Branson. Challenged by Camelot in court for her conduct in selecting Branson, the lottery regulator was forced to resign and the competition was re-opened. Eventually, the same lottery commissioners decided to reverse their decision and re-award the licence to Camelot. In the aftermath, Branson pledged never again to bid for the lottery, but recently he has embarked on preliminary discussions with the regulator to consider launching a third pitch. His addiction to winning the Big One reflects his insecurity.
While in recent years he has confounded his critics and rescued himself, thanks to Australian investors in Virgin Blue, he lacks a secure foundation to sustain his fortune from market fluctuations. The profits from airlines and mobile telephones are vulnerable to events. The lottery is guaranteed cash.
If he can profitably exit from telephones just as the business is getting difficult, that would be convenient. Some of the profits could be used for his lottery bid. Branson's hurdle will be silencing the whispers of the wounded, urging his failure.
tank slapper said:
traxx said:
As summarised by the Guardian:
The natural paper of the entrepreneur...That is so very typical of the Guardian. Champagne Socialists outwardly despise people like Branson, whilst are inwardly very envious. Unlike most of the Grauniad readership, Branson at least had the minerals to try. It's so much easier to denigrate the efforts of others...
traxx said:
Plotloss said:
Crime.
yeah - funny enough Richard Branson doesn't mention his little early run in with Customs and Excise much does he?Thing I dont get with Branson with the exception of Virgin Music and the Airline - everything the guy has been involved with has turned to sh*t
As summarised by the Guardian:
Since he started Student magazine in 1967, Branson's searing ambition and personality has lured friends, entrepreneurs and established corporations to believe they can always earn fortunes by their attachment to him. Fuelled by the self-made tycoon's incessant self-glorification and ferocious publicity campaigns, the headline successes over the years have sustained the myth of invincibility.
Virgin Music - started amid a sophisticated purchase-tax fraud that Branson admitted in 1971 - was sold in 1992 for a record £560m. That money sustained Virgin Atlantic, the airline started in 1984 with a single, old Boeing 747. In 1999, when Branson sold a 49% stake of the airline to Singapore Airlines to relieve a financial squeeze, he valued the business at £1.2bn.
But beyond those two outstanding successes is a history of failed enterprises, which might have cautioned NTL. Virgin Cola, hailed by Branson in 1994 as the inevitable successor to Coca-Cola, has practically disappeared. Virgin Clothes, launched on the stock exchange in 1996, folded with losses to shareholders. Virgin Money was launched with a glitzy advertisement of Branson emerging naked from the sea, but did not deliver the expected big financial rewards. Then came Virgin Vie, Virgin Vision, Virgin Vodka, Virgin Wine, Virgin Jeans, Virgin Brides, Virgin Cosmetics and Virgin Cars - none fulfilling their creator's inflated dreams.
Other disappointments were truly painful. Virgin Express, an airline based in Brussels, was intended to rival easyJet, but the original investors on the stock market lost money. Similarly, the McCarthy brothers, who invested over £30m in V2, Branson's second music company, lost all their money and, unable even to pay the milkman, faced personal bankruptcy. Australians who invested in the 2003 flotation of Virgin Blue, an audacious, no-frills airline, rewarded Branson with over £200m for a stake of his original investment. Initially the airline was successful, but soon after Branson pocketed the money, shareholders watched the share price fall.
His ventures have also included two catastrophes. Virgin Rail was Branson's big dream. For years he had campaigned in Westminster about the advantages of privatising the rail network. Branson posed as the socially acceptable capitalist, able to offer cheap, modern and reliable rail travel without government subsidies. His promises were not fulfilled. Virgin Rail remains dependent on state money, aggressively protects its monopoly, and is subject to innumerable passenger complaints. The company's history damaged the Virgin brand and Branson's reputation as a reliable entrepreneur, the capitalist with a social conscience.
By 2000, Branson believed that the catalogue of disappointments was behind him. In a millennium lecture in Oxford, he confessed that winning the national lottery licence remained his major, lifetime's ambition. His reason was simple. That year, all his businesses other than the state-protected monopolies in airlines and rail, were losing money. His assiduous promotion of a People's Lottery and his overt support for Tony Blair, Branson believed, could secure his dream on his second attempt. His ambitions are not solely altruistic.
Possessing the lottery licence would bequeath a vast cash flow in management fees and endless free publicity to Virgin by association while Branson anointed the lottery's millionaires. By controlling the lottery, Branson would never again need to bother with dicey enterprises like cola, clothes, cosmetics or even mobile phones. Most important, he would reverse the crushing humiliation he suffered by two rejections.
Convinced by his own genius, Branson had been shattered in 1994 to be told that his bid for the lottery was not only unsuccessful but rated poorly compared with his competitors. He was infuriated by the regulator's decision.
Two years later he launched a libel writ against Guy Snowden, the American mastermind of Camelot, the winner. Snowden was accused by Branson of offering him a bribe. When Snowden denied this, Branson successfully sued for defamation. Regardless of the merits, Branson's pursuit of Snowden, long after Camelot's success was established, suggested to his critics a nastier side of the tycoon's character. Snowden was classed among those who had initially been attracted to sup with the legendary businessman, only to find himself to be his victim.
That view about Branson influenced the strange events following the original award of the lottery licence in 2000 to Branson. Challenged by Camelot in court for her conduct in selecting Branson, the lottery regulator was forced to resign and the competition was re-opened. Eventually, the same lottery commissioners decided to reverse their decision and re-award the licence to Camelot. In the aftermath, Branson pledged never again to bid for the lottery, but recently he has embarked on preliminary discussions with the regulator to consider launching a third pitch. His addiction to winning the Big One reflects his insecurity.
While in recent years he has confounded his critics and rescued himself, thanks to Australian investors in Virgin Blue, he lacks a secure foundation to sustain his fortune from market fluctuations. The profits from airlines and mobile telephones are vulnerable to events. The lottery is guaranteed cash.
If he can profitably exit from telephones just as the business is getting difficult, that would be convenient. Some of the profits could be used for his lottery bid. Branson's hurdle will be silencing the whispers of the wounded, urging his failure.
traxx said:
As summarised by the Guardian:
Kind of says it all!traxx said:
Virgin Cola, hailed by Branson in 1994 as the inevitable successor to Coca-Cola, has practically disappeared.
It’s all we ever have in our house. I’d like to see the evidence to that!traxx said:
Virgin Clothes, launched on the stock exchange in 1996, folded with losses to shareholders. Virgin Money was launched with a glitzy advertisement of Branson emerging naked from the sea, but did not deliver the expected big financial rewards. Then came Virgin Vie, Virgin Vision, Virgin Vodka, Virgin Wine, Virgin Jeans, Virgin Brides, Virgin Cosmetics and Virgin Cars - none fulfilling their creator's inflated dreams.
They forgot to mention Virgin Pubs. So much for thorough journalism!traxx said:
Other disappointments were truly painful. Virgin Express, an airline based in Brussels, was intended to rival easyJet, but the original investors on the stock market lost money. Similarly, the McCarthy brothers, who invested over £30m in V2, Branson's second music company, lost all their money and, unable even to pay the milkman, faced personal bankruptcy.
Investors loose money? No – how can that possibly be!traxx said:
His ventures have also included two catastrophes. Virgin Rail was Branson's big dream. For years he had campaigned in Westminster about the advantages of privatising the rail network. Branson posed as the socially acceptable capitalist, able to offer cheap, modern and reliable rail travel without government subsidies. His promises were not fulfilled. Virgin Rail remains dependent on state money, aggressively protects its monopoly, and is subject to innumerable passenger complaints. The company's history damaged the Virgin brand and Branson's reputation as a reliable entrepreneur, the capitalist with a social conscience.
If that doesn’t smack of socialist bile, I don’t know what does! Upon what grounds is Virgin Rail a catastrophe? The quality of ham in the sandwiches??
traxx said:
While in recent years he has confounded his critics and rescued himself, thanks to Australian investors in Virgin Blue, he lacks a secure foundation to sustain his fortune from market fluctuations. The profits from airlines and mobile telephones are vulnerable to events. The lottery is guaranteed cash.
Guaranteed cash but proportionally, not a lot (if any actually) as it has to be run as a not-for-profit entity. What he is seeking is access to the distribution channels the lottery would leverage. Virgin Cola in every corner shop! That’s good business.traxx said:
His addiction to winning the Big One reflects his insecurity
Insecurity is a common trait amongst many successful business people and is often one of the driving factors that sees them succeed to a level far greater than others.Traxx: I’m quoting you but digging at the article you posted
The journalist who wrote this clearly has no grasp of the fundamentals of business and has more than a socialist edge to it.
Businesses are established. People invest. Sometimes they work and get a return, sometime they fail and loose money. It’s the successes that people should be judged upon.
When this journalist buys his own F1 team, then perhaps we can take his views with a little more relevance.
It's amazing when you look at the Forbes rich list and see all these young Russians. They must be all either directly or indirectly involved in organised crime.
I think that taking the step from multi-millionaire to multi-billionaire takes real balls and luck. I would be tempted to call it a day at £100 million... if I ever get there
I think that taking the step from multi-millionaire to multi-billionaire takes real balls and luck. I would be tempted to call it a day at £100 million... if I ever get there
WEHGuy said:
That's very interesting. I never knew none of that. You should write his unauthorised biography. It would sell or you might get hush money to bin it
There's already been one, The Virgin King by Tim Jackson. It tells of the VAT fraud, the failed takeover attempt of Thorn EMI and how, if Virgin Music hadn't signed Culture Club, there wouldn't have been a Virgin Atlantic.In general I think these qualities are needed:
1) Opportunity. I.e. Bill Gates didn't have to get a job right away did he?
2) Actually doing it. Many many, many people fall at this hurdle
3) Luck.
Irrelevant is a functioning conscience, seed money is useful however.
Common sense is irrelevant - look at Ballantine and Sugar, retarded socialists - probably supporting Labour because of the fortunes made from the housing boom they manufactured, blind to the cost to the rest of us.
1) Opportunity. I.e. Bill Gates didn't have to get a job right away did he?
2) Actually doing it. Many many, many people fall at this hurdle
3) Luck.
Irrelevant is a functioning conscience, seed money is useful however.
Common sense is irrelevant - look at Ballantine and Sugar, retarded socialists - probably supporting Labour because of the fortunes made from the housing boom they manufactured, blind to the cost to the rest of us.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff