So executing people year after year shows that the Singaporian system is working?? Doesn't it show the exact opposite since, you know, they have to continue to execute people?
Wouldn't the success of their laws be validated if no one was executed showing that they had eradicated their drug problem?
And because it's luck, it shouldn't even be thought about. In fact, the word 'luck' shouldn't be used. A more correct term would be 'probability'. There will be a certain number of people who will die by a falling brick or lightning each year. It could be you... probably not.
But it's something that brain cycles shouldn't be wasted on. We get out of bed each morning without knowing that a bad thing will happen that day. We should only think about the things that we can control.
"Call me old-fashioned, but running a business that makes money is not the worst thing in the world."
Are you kidding me? This is the whole point. Regardless of the funding, the goal is for a business to be self-sustaining. A company that relies on external funding is no company at all.
So let all the Zuckerberg-wannabes go after the funding and end-up with 1% stake with 0% authority... I'll settle for building the business, creating the processes and systems, attracting and supporting the customers, and keep my 100% thanks.
This is why Warren Buffet hates tech-stocks. Everyone thinks there's a different metric in tech. There isn't... self-generated cash is king.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” - Teddy Roosevelt
Jeez, everyone is talking incubators, YC, angels, etc. People don't realise that this type of money is the most expensive you will EVER get. And trying to get this funding will consume your business for the better part of a year, at least, with everything else on-hold to the point where you have neglected the actual business long enough that you will need the funding, and die without it.
Bootstrap for as long as you can. Be smart. Be imaginative. Seek out partnerships with customers as they can be a great source of money/advise/contacts if they feel it can benefit them. Sounds like customers love the concept, so get them to pony-up some money or contacts. Then, the cheapest money is the money you don't need.
Equity should be treated as gold. And a lot of founders who create successful businesses kick themselves for the mindless throwing-around of equity in the early stages.
I would suggest setting-up an advisory board. I'm sure you and your co-founders will know several smart people, or ask customers who they recommend.
The writer is over-analysing things and, with the risk of complete generalisation, is a trait more in women than men.
She needs to concentrate on the job, and more importantly, the duty, and stop thinking of non-existent worries and bad potential possibilities/outcomes. Duty is sometimes placed in a bad light, but for a founder, it's the only thing that matters. In fact, I will argue with anyone that duty is much more important than passion. Duty gets one through the shit times and grunt-work, passion does not.
She says she doesn't worry about customers and yet that is the only thing she should worry about. Not (as she writes) investors, advisors, and the craziest one of them all, other founders (jeez). She needs to worry about getting and satisfying customers. Period. They are the only things that matter.
The job of a founder is to create a self-sustaining business. And by self-sustaining, I mean the ability for a business to operate based on its own cash-flow. No investor, or advisor, or other founders are necessary for this, but customers are.
So she needs to concentrate on duty. And her duty is to attract, keep, and satisfy customers, so that they sign and continue to sign cheques. And by doing this, all those other fears will dissipate.
Sure. A business should always be prepared for outside interest meaning that you should have up-to-date financials that you can give-out anytime which show the summary information and overall financial trend, have no unusual liabilities like a unpaid tax liability, systems in-place to automate business functions (so a potential acquirer can see an efficient organisation), all employees/customers on some kind-of contract, no IP issues (all B2B relationships under contract).
So any business with interest can spend a minimal time in due-diligence and see an efficient, professional organisation with no skeletons.
At the same time, the goal of business is to exit, either via a buyout, or IPO, or whatever. No one wants to own a business that is unattractive for acquisition or investment, since these businesses just fade-away over time.
So the directors need to continually look for potential strategic relationships; a) because these are obviously potential customers, and b) because they are potential acquirers who will pay top-dollar for your business. This means that they will forget any standard valuation formulas ('X' x sales, 'Y' x EBITDA, whatever) and look at their overall strategic need for what your business will bring to them. And, most importantly, you need to communicate with them on this strategic level... so you need to do your research and keep your ears open to understand their pain points, and strategic needs.
By keeping your house in order, looking at the strategic level, and trying to elicit the interest of those businesses who 'need' you, you may get yourself in the perfect situations where you have competing bids, or the interested parties start to think (with your gentle prodding, of course) of the pain if you were bought-out by their competitor, etc. These are the ideal situations. But they don't happen by themselves, hence my line: always be exiting.
I don't know what this article was trying to convey.
Valuations are a subjective airy-fairy number and, in reality, based on the strategic need of a buying entity. For example, when I was in the process of selling my last business I had 3 offers. 2 offers were from companies that wanted me obviously but didn't need me strategically, therefore their valuations were low. The 3rd offer was from a company who had a hole in their product-line and my tools fit perfectly in that hole, hence their perception of my company's value was much higher.
So find businesses which have a strategic need (or convince them of such need). Also, I would assume but have no evidence that strategic acquisitions have a higher success ratio than purely financial acquisitions.
And just like salespeople should 'always be closing', business owners should 'always be exiting'.
You know you have hit the perfect pricing point when the client says to you: "You do great work but fuck are you expensive". This means they can't do without you but cringe paying the bill.
My other advise is don't be a consultant. No leverage, no building value, no holidays (trust me on this), no security (you're always first to go). My advise: find a pain point and build a product.
You should be identifying and marketing to other businesses within the same industries as your previous clients. Most businesses in a particular industry will have pain in the same areas.