- Thread starter
- #5
Clearly #2. Yes, the first one made a higher percentage of the investment, but it doesn't mean anything: he made less than minimum wage.
That said, none of the two looks all that stellar to me.
Well ... the poll is not really about whether either of them did a "stellar" job ... what I am really inquiring about is perspective.
Being as the early results seems to be leaning in favor of Person #2 ... I'll offer a counter-argument in favor of Person #1.
I think Person #1 is far more impressive.
1) It is infinitely easier to make money with money. If person #2 needs to fund a advertising campaign ... acquire software or services ... make use of business travel ... or do just about anything else .. he or she just writes the check. Person #1 (conversely) has to figure out how to build a metaphorical airplane ... with a stick of bubble gum ... a box of matches ... and a used sheet of aluminum foil. He has to figure out how to do more with less. Kinda like Bear Grylls in the woods.
2) Notwithstanding these handicaps ... Person #1 got resourceful ... and found a way to to multiply his money five-fold. Imagine what will happen when he too acquires meaningful access to capital and resources ...? Think of it like a runner training up the mountains. Huffing and puffing for want of oxygen. We all know what happens when he comes down from the mountains and competes at sea level. No different here. As he too acquires access to resources (oxygen) ... I expect him to kick serious a$$.
3) Despite all these advantages ... Person #2 only netted a 20% R.O.I. What's his excuse?
If you asked me ... which of these two would be the first to make $10 million ... my money is on Person #1.
A 500% R.O.I. ... is 25 times more productive than a 20% R.O.I.
If I was a venture capitalist with money to invest ... I'd hand it to Entrepreneur #1.
Last edited: