vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Even then, he's only built *one* successful company, and with that groundbreaking idea it would've been pretty difficult to fuck it up. He was just the earliest player in that space.  Edit: okay it's not just one successful company, I was wrong. He has more of an entrepreneurial prowess than I credited him for.
I work in marketing. Finance is probably the safest route with regards to opportunity and stability. Marketing can be expendable. Finance usually can't.   That being said, it really depends on your personality type. Marketing people and Finance people are two different breeds. If you're the type that likes a very linear, matter-of-fact field, stick to finance where numbers don't lie.   If your more of an extrovert who likes to think creatively in a field of a lot of unknowns, marketing may be the way to go.
"I'd say there's technical leadership - ""that guy really knows his s**t and we don't have time to learn the details ourselves, so we'll go with his recommendations"" - and there's psychological leadership - ""this is the direction we want to move in, and he's the guy who can convince everyone else to move in that direction"".  You could breakdown the psychological side into additional functions as well, for example, the ability to convince everyone to go in a certain direction is not always the same as the ability to ensure that all parties involved feel cared for and happy.  I don't have any particular recommendations though. Some of these and their related tags might interest you:  https://twitter.com/lollydaskal  https://twitter.com/hashtag/orgdesign  https://twitter.com/hashtag/employeeexperience  https://twitter.com/white_owly"
In view of business, we have to book the entries. Business view, owner and business are different. When capital is invested in business by owner, in future business has to repay it.  That's why, capital always credit. When we come about  bank (business prospective) - cash, bank, fd are like assets which can help in the business. Bank is current asset (Real account) - Debit (what comes into the business)                                        Credit (what goes out of the business) Hence credit and debit differs from what type of account is it.... credit - when business liables debit - what business has and receivables
Uhh, why would amazon raise prices? Their divisions Already make a profit. They are using divisional profit to launch other divisions. There will be areas where it fluctuates, but this isn’t a loss-leader strategy nor are they burning through VC money trying to get a good strategy off the ground.   This is the strategy. This is the business. And it’s working.
Ideally, stock price reflects the value of the company, the dividends it is expected to pay, and what people expect the future value of the company to be. Only one of those (maybe one and a half) is related to current  sales, and not always directly. Short-term motion of a stock is even less directly linked, since it also reflects previous expectations. A company can announce disappointing sales and see its stock go up, if the previous price was based on expecting  worse news.
I like option 3.  Your passion lies elsewhere, and your company deserves a strong, dedicated leader.  You should not have to look far to find someone with the energy and drive to carry on, so you can get on to your dream to help others!
The contradiction is not that executives who take strategic decisions are responsible for the decisions of a business and thus its profits or losses, because that's the result of the strategic planning they perform. The contradiction is that you deem yourself capitals of adding to this conversation without the slightest grasp of what you're saying.
When you begin a business, you should choose which business structure (likewise legitimate structure or business frame) to Business Structure. In case you're essentially in business for yourself and don't anticipate enlisting workers, you might have the capacity to get by as a sole proprietorship. Be that as it may, huge business elements for the most part fuse, which gives certain advantages regarding obligation insurance and the multifaceted nature required for a substantial business.
Sales are useless. Profit determines value.  Others made good suggestions, but make sure you don't personally guarantee anthing.  Understand your requirements to continue having the investor involved. Understand who has approval authority and decision making authority, ie are you a hired gun or the managing owner?  Finally, probability of success is low, so do your homework, bust your ass, and understand when you will wall away (ie if you aren't profitable in 3 years, or below $500k in rev, etc)
"There are three (or four) ways that a company can grow: (Crowdfunding is a relatively new (in mainstream businesses) alternative financing method where people will finance a company with the expectation that they will benefit from the product or service that they provide.) Obviously a startup has no prior income to use, so it must either raise money through equity or debt. People say that one must borrow contingent on their salary. Banks lend money based on the ability to pay the loan back plus interest. For individuals, their income is their primary source of cash flow, so, yes, it is usually the determining factor in getting a loan. For a business the key factor is future cash flows. So a business will borrow money, say, to buy a new asset (like a factory) that will be used to generate cash flows in the future so that they can pay down the debt. If the bank believes that the use of the money is going to be profitable enough that they will get their money back with interest, they'll loan the money. Equity investors are essentially the same, but since they don't get a guaranteed payback (they only get paid through non-guaranteed dividends or liquidation), their risk is higher and they are looking for higher expected returns. So the question I'd have as a bank or equity investor is ""what are you going to do with the money?"" What is your business strategy? What are you going to do that will make profits in the future? Do you have a special idea or skill that you can turn into a profitable business? (Crowdfunding would be similar - people are willing to give you money based on either the social or personal benefit of some product or service.) So any business either starts small and grows over time (which is how the vast majority of businesses grow), or has some special idea, asset, skill, or something that would make a bank willing to take a risk on a huge loan. I know, again, that people here tend to turn blind eyes on unfortunate realities, but people do make giant businesses without having giant incomes. The ""unfortunate reality"" is that most startups fail. Which may sound bad, but also keep in mind that most startups are created by people that are OK with failing.
Yeah that all can definitely be true as well, in fact we both 100% agree on symptoms of low growth. However personally I believe there are always ways to reinvest and build your business. I mean look at AAPL, they allocated $100~ billion into their own Nevada hedge fund buying up high quality debt like it's a fire sale. Some companies create their own VC firms combatting disruptive innovation. We can argue about this all we want but share buybacks can signify a lot of things at the end of the day haha. My main point with the comment above was that the buybacks inflating EPS makes it more difficult to identify true earnings growth of a company.   So serious question, do you know of any ways to filter that out and identify real earnings growth?
Twitter (and Facebook) are media companies. They make money selling (user generated) content to advertisers. To do this affectively, they need people on the ground in each market who speak the language and know the local customs.  If your question is why don't they make larger profits, is this their focus? Growth is THE major factor in stock price for a startup / newly floated company.
Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated).  You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A.  However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.
Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains.
Exactly, and that is a big 'if'. Growing companies often do not distribute dividend because they reinvest everything into the company. Although sometimes, to make shares more attractive, they'll give dividend. It's all up to the board and what they think is the most prudent move.
It doesn't hurt to pencil out the details starting with a sales projection. Doing anything without a plan increases the odds of failure. Putting it in writing creates a sharable vision. I've put together multi-page business plans (40-50 pages - very pretty). The best one I have is one page, hand written and I keep it with me practically all the time, tweeking it.
Private equity is not entirely comprised of turnarounds, however, I understand what you're looking for, and I suggest you take some time to read this article: http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/22306-my-week-at-private-equity-boot-camp  Note: the people who sit in offices and crunch numbers or figure out how to structure deals are generally the middle or lower-level staff of a firm.  At the top of a firm, you generally have people who decide what the fund should be invested in, and what strategy they should use.  PE is a business, and you should think of it that way.  So, if it were your business, you'd naturally hire really smart guys to crunch numbers or come up with solutions.  Then YOU look at these outputs and choose one to go with.  Such is how an efficient PE firm runs.
Nothing.  Retail is not going to go away, it will change and transmutate, and just like evolution it will be a gradual change with some pieces falling off the cliff, but no disasters.  AMZN / WMT are leading the change, others will follow; most of the retail business models will become antiquated and replaced.
GA Progress is your daily source of business news, Feed your brain with our exclusive content of Technology, Business, Innovation and Much More, Just for you! We love to become the best business news site if not the best then most popular business news site will do, and we cannot do it without you guys, the readers of this site. Stay updated and subscribe to our newsletter!
"Past results are not a predictor of future results. There is no explicit upper bound on a market, and even if individual companies' values were remaining unchanged one would expect the market to drift upward in the long term. Plus, there's been some  shift from managing companies for dividends to managing stocks for growth, which will tend to increase the upward push. Trying to time the market -- to guess when it's going to move in any particular direction -- is usually closer to gambling than investing. The simplest answer remains a combination of buy-and-hold and dollar-cost averaging. Buy at a constant number of dollars per month (or whatever frequency you prefer), and you will automatically buy more when the stock/fund is lower, less when it is higher. That takes advantage of downturns as buying opportunities without missing out on possible gains at the other end. Personally, I add a bit of contrarian buying to that -- I increased my buying another notch or two while the market was depressed, since I had money I wouldn't need any time soon (buy and hold) and I was reasonably confident that enough of the market would come back strongly enough that I wasn't at significant risk of losing the investment. That's one of the things which causes me to be categorized as an ""aggressive investor"" even though I'm operating with a very vanilla mix of mutual funds and not attempting to micromanage my money. My goal is to have the money work for me, not vice versa."
&gt; The most important pieces of any corporate structure are (1) clarity of roles, (2) accountability, and (3) ease of communication. I have to agree and second this wholeheartedly. Every place I have seen failures occur were almost completely because of at least 1 of these things being absent. To clarify, every one of those failures could have been avoided if the focus had been shifted onto fixing these 3 items inside operations. &amp;nbsp; The largest ones were due mostly to accountability and communications issues. The clarity of roles can be overcome in dynamic environments with absolute focus on the other two. Accountability is a two-way street though. This is especially true in any environment that is measured on metrics. One example is below: &amp;nbsp; Operations environment for any type of ticketing &gt; resolution work. This could be anything IT, service or delivery related that has any form of SLA. A common occurrence that is overlooked in metrics environments is whether or not an issue being forwarded, escalated or otherwise dumped onto any other entity, including initial submission, has all the needed information to complete or resolve the task at hand. In this example metrics are usually tracked with timers ticking once the task has been assigned to the next entity. If the task requires certain information or details before it can be acted upon or completed, then the receiving entity can't proceed. This specific instance, there was no communication channel back to the submitting internal entity to obtain the info, leaving the only option to reject the task. Instead of addressing the root problem of communication, mgmt cranked down on accountability towards the team that rejected the task. This started causing all sorts of issues with SLAs going way outside of acceptable metrics and no one with authority to fix it could figure out why. So, *logically* a more in-depth approach was taken to intensify the unidirectional accountability that caused the problem. This did not fix the issue and led to too many good people being fired for failing to meet SLAs. They brought in a consultant to fix the problem, who took the same approach as before.
In a purely e-commerce point of view, they're pulling ahead of the other retailers. The problem, though, is that anyone making 'progress' isn't doing it organically, they're just buying the smaller guys that are doing it better (ie Jet.com for Walmart, drugstore.com for Walgreens) and jamming it into their way of working.
Thanks for the response, the good thing is I can easily answer those questions without problem and I have a solid answer for all of them so I think my next goal is to write out my business plan. I heard it should around 30-50 pages.
"This question is really general to answer. That's like asking ""Is it easier to be a dog or a cat?""   Your answer is going to be defined by your circumstances and approach, which are going to come somewhere from the following:  - How much capital do you have to start stuff?  - Can you get a loan? If so, how much is it? - Do you already have a business model? Is it going to effectively compete against existing, successful businesses? - Do you have a unique advertising gimmick?  - Is this a technical business? Does it require a patent? Is that patent already secured? - Do you already have a new idea or technology? - Where will you find talent? - Do you have any experience with investment? How aggressive are you going to be investing?  - Do you have any experience with business?  Just remember, the overwhelming majority of businesses fail. I know several business owners (some successful, some unsuccessful).   The list goes on, and honestly I don't think Reddit is a good place to start."
I agree, sales will always win.  I just saw another study that showed social media engagement for companies and 99% were getting almost no engagement from organic social posts.  The 1% that were getting organic engagement were killing it though.  My point is that most companies still have no real grasp as to what the hell they are supposed to be doing in this space.
It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter.  Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends).  One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described.  But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities.  That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that.  We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios.  That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices.  It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.
Who wrote this?  Just because some people -- and aparantly the author -- don't know the meaning of some of these doesn't mean they are useless phrases.  But to close the loop on this… = Always the more theoretical Business Development/Strategy guys who say this, so they can sound thorough?  Not.  Try: put a process in place to make certain that the things we just decided to do actually get done, either by assigning a third party to or using an automated system to regularly check for failure to progress, and deliver that information to someone that can do something about it.  This is low-hanging fruit = Get this done quickly?  How about, this can be done quickly and brings disproportionate and important immediate benefits, so we should do it first.
"I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need.  People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend.  You are correct though Pfizer might be considered ""more growth."" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon.  Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products.  Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend.  Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible.   The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company.  Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income.  You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well."
Leaders come together from very different professional and business perspectives, such as functions, product, or lines of business. They often need to vie for resources, influence, and sometimes even their superior’s job. This is all part of the deal--to represent their unique perspectives, to have a say about their beliefs, and ultimately to run the place if they get the nod.
Why not both? An entrepreneur spirit doesn't simply start once you graduate high school. I still remember building my first website when I was ten to sell my Pokémon cards. It was a great experience that helped me become who I was today.
Skilled workers *can* drive profits when deployed strategically, but they do precisely nothing on their own. Moreover, in their respective roles, none of them have the business-level perspective of the company in mind. They're too busy doing their own jobs, which is as it should be. Management deploys them to make money. And employees, like any other resource, need to be leveraged up or down as business needs demand.
The larger social change of commerce leaving main streets and going online is what's most interesting to me. But if you're more interested in whether certain stores will stay alive, even if that may mean a shrinking physical footprint in exchange for e-commerce, just follow the quarterly earnings instead.
Yes, but the point is that a successful person's actions are supplemented by luck.  For every successful person who says they worked hard to get theirs, there's a good number of people who worked just as hard but were not as lucky.
Companies in their earliest stages will likely not have profits but do have the potential for profits.  Thus, there can be those that choose to invest in companies that require capital to stay in business that have the potential to make money. Venture Capital would be the concept here that goes along with John Bensin's points that would be useful background material.  For years, Amazon.com lost money particularly for its first 6 years though it has survived and taken off at times.
Mentor For Business is a concept which has the potential to turn any business around and put it on the road to greater profitability. Offering you a tested range of growth-focused services professionally packaged by Pedram Mirza, Mentor For Business is like having a business partner totally committed to helping your business achieve more with existing resources.
I mean isn't it implied that cash flows increase by the amount of the benefit of the investment each year? I'm a little shaky on cash flows tbh. My scope may be limited compared to yours I've never taken a financial management class but just from financial accounting knowledge since I recently finished that, it seems like cash flows would be increased if revenues are increased. Unless the revenue increase is for some reason solely in the form of accounts receivable or some asset other than cash.
I once had worked for Koch Industries. I attended a meeting in which Charles Koch said 'do well so that you can do good'. I like that philosophy. It means make money (even if it is from 'bad' companies) so that you have the means (money) to do good things for others. Bill Gates has made money and is now trying to do good with it.  You have better control of how your money is used if you manage it yourself. If you let some faceless company manage it you are never quite sure that they are really helping others.