vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Saving money for the future is a good thing. Whether spending those savings on a business venture makes sense, will depend on a few factors, including: (1) How much money you need that business to make [ie: will you be quitting your job and relying on the business for your sole income? Or will this just be a hobby you make some pocket change from?] (2) How much the money the business needs up front [some businesses, like simple web design consulting, might have effectively $0 in cash startup costs, where starting a franchise restaurant might cost you $500k-$1M on day 1] (3) How risky it is [the general stat is that something like 50% of all new businesses fail in their first year, and I think for restaurants that number is often given as 75%+] But if you don't have a business idea yet, and save for one in the future but never get that 'perfect idea', the good news is that you've saved a bunch of money that you can instead use for retirement, or whatever other financial goals you have. So it's not the saving for a new business that is risky, it's the spending. Part of good personal financial management is making financial goals, tracking your progress to those goals, and changing them as needed. In a simpler case, many people want to own their own home - this is a common financial goal, just like early retirement, or starting your own business, or paying for your kids' college education. All those goals are helped by saving money, so your job as someone mindful of personal finances, is to prioritize those goals in accordance to what is important for you.
Of course, the *quality* of that content will dictate whether or not it's a successful business endeavor.  If in-house content is 100% of what you do, and 75% of that is shit, then it may not work out in the end.  As you probably know from the entire content business, creating compelling and valuable content isn't a cakewalk...and it costs money - lots of it in the case of the market Netflix is trying to enter.
Accounting profits and cash flow are two different things. Say for example that I sell you a widget and you pay me today. I deliver the widget to you in February. In accounting terms, the revenue isn't recorded until Feb even though I have the cash in October. There's also a lot of non-cash items that affect accounting income (depreciation, amortization, etc.) In a small, growing company, cash is the most important thing. Many startups know what their burn rate (how much net cash their out flowing each month) and runway (how many months they can survive with their given burn rate until they are literally out of cash) more intimately than their accounting profit.   As for what qualifies as a startup, that's something that is debated in the startup world fairly often. I think the best take is from Paul Graham. http://paulgraham.com/growth.html
As someone who works with LBOs and a decent number of M&amp;A deals, I find the biggest issue is that managers don't understand the competitive advantages of their company. They try to pivot into higher margin processes and products because they see other companies who are doing well there. The companies who succeed target niches in the market and make acquisitions that complement their skills. The other issue is that the market is too hot right now and when a good company comes up, you have PE firms and strategics bidding against each other, typically leaving a winner who bid too high.
I think a company can more easily crunch the numbers in figuring out how much revenue additional sales would mean to the bottom line. Top Brass also understands how tough selling is because they had to do it.  BTW- not saying you don't work harder.
These aren't depictions of a single event. They are aggregations of month's of interactions that give a good representation of single events in a variety of contexts on a daily basis. Of course, there are exceptions. However, I have found that exceptions within both cultures are extremely rare based on my personal experience. This only furthers my point. Can you begin to see why a collaborative corporate culture is so foundational to the success of any endeavor regardless of scope, complexity, etc? The other aspect that adds to the importance of a sound corporate culture is the self fulfilling nature of culture. Which organization do you think inspires future collaborative behavior? Even those people that want to collaborate within client B are consistently met with resistance. Those in client A are inspired by the positive interactions, enhanced results, and they are more likely to actively seek out others to help and work with. Both trajectories are accelerated in opposite directions just by the nature of the prevailing culture. So how do you create and engender a culture that embodies collaboration? That my friends is a question I don't pretend to have all the answers too. Maybe I'll be so lucky to figure that one out someday......"
Honestly, more start-up companies that grow into huge firms should have succession plans that include the founder handing the CEO reins to a professional executive, while they shift over to the Head of Product/Strategy role. Let someone with experience handle corporate governance, shareholder/board relations, HR policy, risk management, financial controls, etc. The founder built their company through their product vision, being a CEO of a multi-billion company is an entirely different skill set.  Really, the Google founders are the ideal model for this. Put your ego aside and let Eric Schmidt handle the CEO stuff, you guys focus on our next moves and making the product the best.
Human Capital consultants help you climb up the ladder of success gradually with sincere steps that were, otherwise, not taken. With this, you gain an edge in the world of business and the strength to sustain the success in near future. Consistency is the key and a business will learn that from such ace consultants.
It’s all about networking in this situation. I don’t mean the gauge business sense of building relationships. It’s about going around 24/7 with the how can I help people attitude. Same for social media. For instance write 15 articles (2000+ words) per month about various things you sell focusing on your area. Attend, as has been a aid, local conferences and volunteer to help at local community events, etc. Small local businesses are hard. Most of the time it’s not about getting one things right, but about getting a lot of little things right over a long period. That’s what made Walmart such a success. Good luck!
"There's another line of business based on the theory of perpetual incremental growth. It's called a ""pyramid scheme""  In the longlongago, there were two general types of stock: growth stocks and income stocks.   Growth stocks were generally smaller businesses that were still, well, growing. You didn't expect much of a dividend from them because they were reinvesting profits into growing into new markets. The focus was on capital growth.   Once a company got fairly large and mature, then the expectation of capital growth tapered off because back then reasonable investors recognized it's insane to expect that a company can grow forever. Then, while there may be some ongoing capital growth, the major focus was on dividend income - getting a piece of the profits a large, established company could pull in.   The dotcom (among other things) broke that. People got obsessed with capital growth and instant returns. The idea of a decent yield over time became laughable. Instead a company had to show a percentage year over year growth or they got filleted by Wall Street.   If you put one penny on the first square of a checkerboard, then two pennies on the next, then four pennies on the square after that... once you fill the entire checkerboard how much money do you have?"
Assuming S&amp;P value as % of GDP doesn't change, to get S&amp;P return you add (Nominal GDP % growth + Dividend Yield) -&gt; S&amp;P return.  Historically the S&amp;P has grown faster as corporations of won market share and therefore grown to a larger portion of GDP.  While this can continue (or possibly reverse), and can happen globally as well, you are correct in pointing out that it cannot continue ad infinitum.
This sort of question pops up with every new or sexy technology, and it's born (IMO) from the misguided opinion that a growth industry is a source of huge, guaranteed profit.  The reality is that, even in rapidly growing tech sectors, there is a high infant mortality rate. A lot of balloons go up, many pop, some drift far off course, some get tangled in the branches... and a few rise to the heavens, making the early investors look like supergeniuses.  Some very few of them were! They did their research, they made calculated risk assessments, and they chose AAPL over competitive companies.   Some bought AAPL near the IPO through luck. If your investment strategy idealizes these guys, go to Las Vegas and bet on red. Red never fails. Plus: you'll get free drinks, a buffet, and a nice stage show while you go bankrupt.  But in general, companies within a new, rising sector like marijuana dispensaries/farms/whatever aren't guaranteed growth. Do your research, and diversify your investments!
There's really no general rule of thumb. There are a lot of factors that go into that decision.   It highly depends on the type of business, your financials and business strategy.   It's a double edged sword because retained earnings lose the potential to provide a higher return. While being cash poor can easily kill a company.  It sounds like you're experiencing significant growth. If there is high market potential and expansion prospects, a safe bet is to keep about 3 months of operating costs accessible while leveraging a bank loan to fund the growth.  That's the best answer I can provide without having any information.
Get used to it. This trend won't change while investors are 100% focused on quarterly results at the expense of long-term investment and growth strategies from companies. Successful businesses that don't need a large capital injection will stay the course knowing that in mid to long-term their net worth will be higher.
This edition of News Bites looks at an article by Bob Pozen and Theresa Hamacher, published by the Financial Analysts Journal in December, at a speech by Don Phillips of Morningstar given at the Business &amp; Wealth Management Forum held in October, and at McKinsey &amp; Company’s most recent annual review of the asset management industry. All three discuss factors leading to success in the mutual fund industry.
Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory
"As someone who grew up in the restaurant business, I can vouch for your argument. Usually it goes like this:  1) Restaurant opens, has unique recipe / menu / whatever that works well 2) Restaurant expands 3) Recipe / menu / whatever is turned into a mass production model of its former self to match increase in scale = quality suffers for quantity (think grandma's homemade sauce after being ""streamlined"" through a PowerPoint presentation by a food consultant) 4) Restaurant goes to shit"
Most companies want to grow. In order to grow, you need to do better than just breaking even. If you want to keep hiring, or building new facilities, you'd probably want to retain some of your earnings year over year. That's just one reason. Shareholders also want to see a higher return on their investment; dividends are paid out of retained earnings, rather than expensed in the calculation of profits. Decreasing profits decreases retained earnings, which pisses off shareholders. I'm sure someone else can expand on this or fill in any other holes.  Edit: Someone please correct me if I'm off base here. My comment is a bit confusing at times. For instance, tax  expense is included in the calculation of book income, but not taxable income, and this comment deals with both.
Business mentors ensure viability through holistic assistive orientations for startups in deliberates on the significance of startup advisor services by business consultant firms.They guide the new ventures by helping them adopt the best practices and avoid the bad decisions.For More Info:- http://www.startupmentor.co.in/
I don't necessarily think anyone strives to be a one-man shop. But he makes an excellent point about the mentality of the business owner.  You get a type-A personality running the show and they want to do everything or micromanage because they feel they do it better.  A business can only grow so big with that mentality--I've seen it first-hand too many times.
"I'll chime in as someone who started a business after my first year in college. That business kept me going for a couple decades and allowed me to retire young.  First thought - ""you don't just start a business"" with no idea what you're going to do. When you have a true passion, you'll know it.   Once you discover something that you love to do, you will find that you dedicate your time to it and it won't feel like work. You'll spend countless hours on it becoming 'great' at it. It will be obvious that you should pursue it. If you don't feel like this, then you'll very likely give up when you need to double down. Or, if it's really a good business idea, you won't be competitive.   Starting and running a business may be the hardest thing you'll ever do. When your friends are out partying, you'll be coding, or stocking shelves or writing ad copy or paying bills or cleaning toilets. When the business has a bad month, you'll forgo your income so you can pay your employees or other bills. But you'll love it and believe in what you're doing, so you'll keep going.   It seems trite but so much will just come down to persistence and hard work. Over time, you'll become one of the best at what you do. But that will take years. Years before you'll likely make enough money to survive. So for most people, you'll have to get a conventional job to pay the bills.  As you try to sell yourself or your product, you have to keep asking yourself ""would I spend my money on this?"" If you wouldn't, why would anyone else? Always remember that.   The positive thing is, if you find your calling, you'll keep thinking ""I have the best job in the world!"" and it won't feel like work. It will just be what you do."
"Agreed. Sometimes, I wish I would have done something more creative, more engaging, more dynamic.   Finance is very straightforward and logical. For every contingency there is a specific set of rules/theory you follow to make a decision. I work in corp dev at a fortune 500 healthcare company and very little gut decisions are made without a ""model"" or endless PowerPoints explaining a decision. Of course this is an incredible simplification of the finance industry, but you can't tell me that working in finance can hold a candle to the every-day general dynamics of working for a small web start-up.  Sometimes I think of how much I would enjoy doing that, working for a startup. But then I log into mint and I laugh as a model goes down on me while I sip on johnnie walker blue on a tuesday night. Life's good."
Amazon Dash and this acquisition happening around the same time, the direction of travel seems pretty obvious.  Buy a business with existing supply chains with good producers, with existing grocery storage space all over and with a good existing reputation, and release a product to allow consumers to make near-instant orders whenever they want around the same time...
Wow. Okay. First do you mean that you profited by 30k or that you have 30k in revenue?   Second why are you selling it? Do you not want it? Can you not grow it? Why or why not?  I feel like you’re going to need to flesh out your business  a little more to get a better answer.
"I would change that statement to ""very few people can CONSISTENTLY beat the market "". Successful strategies will get piled into and reduce returns. Markets will pick up inefficiencies, but at the same time they do exists. Tons of interesting reading especially in regards to value. Is there a risk premium that we don't know for value? Or is it a market behavior thing?"
Each of your prototype or iteration should have a specific goal. In a lot of cases, it becomes difficult for a prototype to do a lot of things at a time. It could be because of anything, cost, logistics, development of the product, pitching process etc. the necessity is for several iterations that are required. It is best to get hardcore granular in such situations.
I wish I'd bought more), Howard Shultz (Starbucks), The list goes on and on and on. When it is time for them to exit, they pick from the first two examples to fill the position. Smaller companies have several different exit strategies they can employ. There is one thing you will find with every Fortune 500 and Fortune 50 company. They don't do it for the money. The money happens, but by the time you have established yourself as CEO, you have more than you will spend and you know it. There will come a day that you realize you can buy a Bentley, but you may or may not want to. It's just a car. You can buy a double door glass sub zero, but you probably wont. It's stuff and that's not what wakes you up in the morning. I'm not saying money isn't important (it is and it's not. Once you have the ""A ha! moment I am talking about, it becomes a way of keeping score). But it's not the passion that drives some of these men to work until the day they die with a grin on their faces. For the guys who think it's about money, ask yourself why CEOs get diagnosed with cancer and never stop working outside treatment. Your first instinct may be to be with people you love or travel the world. They are already around people they love and doing what the love every day. An important ingredient to their happiness is a love of their product and the people they choose to directly manage. If I'm not friends or close enough to trust a GM with my house keys, I wont keep him or her. Scale that. Of course you can find examples of CEOs who are assholes or ones like Schireson who have hit a point where they love their family more than their company and can't find balance. I took the last 8 years off of business building because I simply wasn't in love with any of my businesses. It wasn't until recently that I found that fire again (mainly from people in my own network wanting to find a new career path and having a surplus of talent I can leverage).
Ok, so then leave it to merit. Does merit always work though? What about nepotism? Personality, when it doesn't matter for the job? Age, Race, Sex, Ethnicity...think these play any part in the hiring process? If all else fails, not everyone can be expected to be a successful entrepreneur. 5. Life: Life can throw you some curveballs, and people make mistakes. Some tend to pay for them more than others. Some have talent, others don't. Some are born with money, some not. Some have a large and caring family, others have no family at all. Again, I'm not saying these things necessarily invalidate your original point, but it's something to consider. Your thoughts?
Being pushed to produce quarterly numbers isn't always the best for a company's long-term strategies. Whether or not this will happen is the question, however. Private companies don't need to post immediate substantial profits, public companies are expected to.
Data is the future, the more data you obtain, the more accurate your predictions. The more accurate your predictions, the more data you can obtain. Data is the fuel to business strategies and they have plenty of data they are currently organizing. There is a reason why they hire more top tier MBA students than any other company.
The power of selling skills. Jonathan convinced him that at 100% it was not truly in the investors best interest because he would lose what made the company grow, him... Example at 100% equity (A buyout) the company would lose its CEO the driving force behind the product. Maybe because of this it only makes a million in sales and value.   But at 35% plus 4% in sales Jonathan will continue to put his heart, soul and passion into the company and in the long term maybe the company becomes worth 10 million. And at 35% this deal is worth 3.5 million to the investor, all because he was convinced of Jonathan's tenacity.  A truly beautiful display of knowing your stuff and sticking to your guns.
*What* big picture?  If you cannot tell the massive drain on an organization simply by looking, you are blind.  How do companies make money?  Income producers.  Who are the income producers?  There are three classes: People who assemble a product, people who charge billable hours, and people who make sales of more product and/or hours.  That's it.  Those are the only people who make money.    If you make a product, you may absolutely require a packaging and shipping department to bring your product to market, but those people will not ever make you more product to sell or bring in more sales, so you run that department as lean as you can.  How lean that is depends entirely on how you feel about business. (Personally, I think it's just as important to be able to enjoy the job as it is to make money, but that's neither here nor there.) Likewise maintenance, likewise IT, likewise accounting, marketing (although they'll never admit it), QC, legal, etc, etc, etc.  The only -ONLY- function of management is to organize operations and deal with problems.  The old PODS-C (Plan, Organize, Direct, Staff and Control(Finance)) falls entirely into organizing or dealing with problems.  Management is there to empower people to do their jobs -and allow them to not deal with crap that is *not* their job- through proper organization and problem resolution.    Just like shipping and maintenance and IT, you run your management staff as lean as possible while still accomplishing the goals of 1) organization to empower employees to do their jobs and 2) problem resolution.  That's it. Once you get that done you don't need any more managers, ever, until you're not able to keep up with 1&amp;2.  So what's the purpose of middle management?  They deal with fundamental problems, but they have no authority to resolve them.  You are paying an entire class of employee to pass the buck up to Higher and wait, hoping that a decision will eventually come back down.  Sometimes they are necessary to accomplish the goals of the organization (ie: during growth periods.)  But they are ALWAYS a drain, and would always be better off replaced by experienced and motivated senior line employees with the authority to make reasonable decisions on the spot.
I've just finished reading The Power of Habit, by Charles Duhigg. A great book using the scientific explanations behind how habits are formed to look at how this can impact management skills and change organisational habits. Lots of great anecdotes.  I run My Business Book Club - a website which offers book recommendations and starter discussion questions. We've got lots more suggestions here: http://mybusinessbookclub.com
The markets are based on a growing population, so yes, revenue growth is possible to continue alongside that into perpetuity.    I know this subreddit is known for their lack of actual basic business foundations, but jesus christ.
This is a great response, thanks. I appreciate Dale Carnegie, Sun Tzu etc, but after reading them I felt they didn't offer anything really specific towards running a business. I've just ordered the personal MBA after reading a bit more on it so thanks for that too. Prince2 methodology looks pretty in depth so that's going on the the 'later' pile for now!
There's a distinction between profits and cash flow, attributed to the recognition of non-cash items.  If you have a business where your customers pay you quickly, you manage your inventory well, and you’re able to take your time in paying your suppliers, your free cash flow can be consistently positive even when your net income is not.