<p>
[quote]
Look, I think the real issue is how we are defining 'success'. You used the word 'successful' without ever really defining it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, actually I think the real issue is whether my business accomplishments will help me get into an MBA program. You are being extremely nit-picky with my words. When I say, "Oh yeah we beat that team" do I have tell the person that our team didn't physically beat them but rather won the game? </p>
<p>It is already assumed that when you say (unless the person is purposely trying to disguise the truth) that your company is successful, that the person means that the company's ROI is significantly high. I don't know why I have to explain that to anyone? </p>
<p>
[quote]
So let's take your arguments in turn. I agree with you that if we can talk about success from a pure return-on-investment standpoint. So if a guy buys a restaurant for a $1million (probably by borrowing the money) and then makes $100,000 a year of profit on it, is he successful? From a ROI standpoint, yes, because he's making a 10% return on his money, which is a good number. Does that mean that this guy is qualified to get his MBA? We can't be sure. The point is that even if we define success in terms of ROI, we still can't be sure that the guy is a good MBA candidate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've already addressed this before Sakky, there is a major difference between purchasing a business and starting up a business; there is also a major difference between starting up a small business and starting up a large business. Anyone can start up a restaurant, a small retail store, etc, but not everyone can start up a company that generates revenues in the 20 million range and has a high ROI. There is a BIG different there, and that difference is what I was alluding to in my original post. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Now as far as the dotcom example, I was using another definition of success, which is to create something that generated revenue (in some cases, a lot of revenue) and something that attracts lots of investors (in some cases, including an IPO). Some of the dotcom entrepreneurs were successful using this particular definition of the word. And some of them made quite a bit of money off their shenanigans. Yet we both agree that they were actually bad businessmen and certainly don't deserve to be in an MBA program.</p>
<p>So you might say that you weren't using that definition of success. But that's my point. How was I supposed to know you weren't using that definition? You never said in your original post which definition you were using.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, it is already assumed that "successful" means a company that has a high ROI and is not trying to deceive investors. Like I said before, can someone get confused when a person says, "We beat the team"? Technically yes. Is it necessary to clarify in everyday talk? No, because people generally know in which context the word is being used. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Our discussion of Asian immigrant entrepreneurs is becoming fruitful, however. Actually, I did not mean to restrict the discussion only to Asians. Lots of people start companies that are profitable and yet I don't know if we would consider them to be worthy of MBA-status. That's not to disrespect their achievements, but rather to illustrate that in many cases, starting and running a company isn't all that much related to admission to an MBA program, as incongrouous as that sounds. Case in point - decades ago, one of my friend's father's immigrated here penniless and opened a pawn shop, and has run that thing for 40 years, and is still running it today. He was able to establish a family and sent his kids to college from the money he made. Yet the fact is, he has less than an 6th-grade's worth of formal education, and to this day speaks only halting English. Yet he did all the things that you said entrepreneurs do - he took initiative, he took risk, he managed the company, he communicated (at least, well enough to run the shop). But I don't think he's MBA material. Do you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again you are being ticky-tack. I originally said:</p>
<p>"You have to conceptually create a business model, take initiative to raise enough capital, assume the risk of investing that money into something that is not concrete, manage the company, have communication skills, and so on."</p>
<p>Does a pawn shop require heavy conceptualization? No. Take initiative to raise enough capital? Not really, with the SBA, there isn't much initiative involved. Assume the risk of investing that money into something that is not concrete? A pawn shop is rather concrete, don't you think? Manage the company? I don't think there is much managing involved with a pawn shop. Have communication skills? I was alluding to business meetings and client work, not discussing how much a product is worth or costs to a customer. </p>
<p>Sakky, you keep taking my points that are predicated on a high level of business knowledge and and try to compare it to small businesses. I'm sorry but that is faulty and makes absolutely no sense. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe you have also asked a nonsequitur. You ask why doesn't everybody do what you are doing, if it is as easy as running a franchise. Well, the mere fact that few people go off and run franchises speaks to that point. Very few people will go off and buy a Burger King, even though that seems to be easier to do than what you are proposing. So if so few people are going to run and buy a Burger King, even though it is relatively safe to your business, then clearly very very few people are going to your business.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your logic in this part of your post makes no sense and is, well, nonsequitur itself. People purchase franchises because they are low risk and fairly consistent profit ventures - isn't that the point of franchises from the consumers standpoint? While in contrast, start-ups are risky and often fail more than they succeed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the far more interesting question is why aren't more people going off and buying Burger Kings. While I don't know the answer to that question, I think it has to do with risk and initiative. The fact is, most people want to have a steady job with a steady and predictable salary. Most people are risk-averse and don't want to have the responsibility associated with running a company.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off there is a LOT of people who own franchises, and the reason why more people don't go off and purchase these franchises is because they cost a lot of money. Not everyone has 300-500k to purchase a franchise like Burger King. </p>
<p>And secondly, franchises are actually risk-adverse ventures themselves, thus the reason why they are sold at higher a market price than no-name businesses with the same business operation. You are paying for the name of the franchise, which significantly reduces the risk of failure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is why those highly educated immigrant Asian professionals would rather just work as doctors or engineers and rarely go off and start Asian restaurants, even if the restaurant might ultimately make them more money than their job would. Asian restaurants (and other ethnic Asian businesses) are almost always started by those relatively poor and relatively poorly educated Asians. To be clear - not all poor Asian immigrants start restaurants. But almost all Asian restaurants were started by poor Asian immigrants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but this part of your post is completely false and, well, ignorant. Asians do not just become doctors or engineers (you speak like those two careers were a fall back) simply because they are risk-adverse professions, they pursue those careers because they are prestigious, highly thought of in the Asian community, and well-paying jobs. </p>
<p>I would also disagree with your comment about "almost all" Asian restaurants being started by poor Asian immigrants. From what I've seen, Asian restaurants are typically started by people that are anywhere from lower-middle class to rich. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But anyway, that's really neither here nor there. I used them as an example to show that just because you start a company, even if the company is successful, does not necessarily mean that you are MBA material.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, your examples were completely irrelevant thus this is once again a moot point. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, you say that I am misunderstanding your business and so forth. But what do you want me to do? You've provided me with hardly any information about your business at all. So how else am I supposed to analyze it, except by offering examples? Come on, you gotta admit you're being a bit unfair. You can't just provide me with so little information about your business and then complain that I am misunderstanding it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never asked you to understand my business, I asked whether my business would help me get into an MBA program. When someone asks, "Will working at Goldman Sachs help me get into an MBA program?", do I have to ask them whether they got to work on time everyday, worked hard every hour, etc? </p>
<p>I think you are being extremely nitpicky in your points. The fact that your inital post was drawn out with links leads me to believe that you either enjoy writing out long drawn post, are a nit-picker, want to talk about what we're talking about, or a long-shot go to UCLA. </p>
<p>The last part was a joke, just thought I should add that before you write a 10 page analytical paper about it. Oh the 10 page analytical paper thing was a joke as well.</p>