Is Ownership Crucial to Fastlane Wealth

Hi All,

I have just finished reading "How to Get Rich" by Felix Dennis and he has espoused one crucial idea:

"To become rich you must be an owner"

I truly appreciate for the opinions on the following scenario:

1. Who should be owning the larger share of the venture? The one who is putting the capital or the one who is building from scratch?

2. Is it recommended to enter into a partnership of any kind if one has not owned a successful business outright?

Lastly, can anyone share with us on the successful partnership that you have gone through?

Thanks in advance

It is my experience that a partner who is 'only' investing money in the business and doers not have an operational role should never want to have a majority interest in the company. The partner who is the entrepreneur and who has to actually build up the company should have/keep the feeling that it is his/her company. He/she has to make a success of it.
Of course, the investor can/should assure (through a shareholders or partnership agreement) that the entrepreneur needs his/her approval for certain important decisions.

As long as you know what you're doing (good product/service, solid plan, risk awareness, proactive, etc.) and you are able to find a partner who is willing to put up the capital even though the entrepreneur (you) has never owned a successful business I would not worry about the fact that it is your first business.

I also found that point very interesting when readin Felix book. It's one of the points where is disagrees with the lessons from Rich Dad books that advocated never owning anything and considered going public as the greatest goal to be achieved.

Ultimately a company belongs to it's shareholders. The founder, the CEO, etc. are just employees.

If you read the story of guys like Jim Clark (founder Silicon Graphics and Netscape) you'll see that by not owning their companies, for exmaple because they gave up more and more equity to VCs while trying to fund growth, founders can be kicked out of the companies they helped create. Even Steve Jobs was moved away from Apple at one point.

In the end I believe you'll need to find a balance between the capital your company needs and how much equity you'll have to put up to get it. Always considering that the moment you have less than 51% of the equity (or voting shares) it's not you making the decisions anymore. And knowing that some of the most sucessful companies today depended on initial investments and going public to grow (think Google, Youtube, etc.)

My two cents……


I highly believe that the avenue to riches (Fastlane to rishes) is to put your money to work for you and not to work for your money…

Hence this were business ownership comes into play whether you are part share owner or
Full owner you are multiplying your available work week or hours…

For example a very basic idea: a typical 40 hour work week at a salary rate of say $20/hour x 40 hours =800 per week, now if you have 20 employees all earning you lets say even at the end of the day $10/hour x40 hours =$400x 20 employees that 8, thousand dollars a week …….A very simple idea of making your money work for you with ownership of a typical brick and mortar business …

Now there are many ways of achieving the same idea , could be through real estate , stock markets etc……but you wont get rich working for someone else …….

Agree but what about the millionaire next door? assume have worked for someone else and did get rich.... course they didn't have to pay all the overhead, labor costs, mtl cost and insurance ect...

Well the millionaire next door unless he won the lottery or inherited his money working as a plummer for someone is not gonna get him to millionaire status.
Maybe he was smart and had saved every penny over 40-50 years and had it in a compounding interest account of some type or fund then sure ...but by then he is almost ready for the grave....lol

That is defiantly the slow lane approach to wealth...definatley the long way.

People lets get on the Fast lane to wealth so you can enjoy your life while you still have some good years left in your life and not when your 65

"Control everything, own nothing"

John D. Rockefeller

Purenergy-

Wild. I've used this quote many times, and had no idea it is attributed to Rockefeller.

Thank you!

-Russ H.

The last day or two I've been trying to figure out how one could "control" mobile homes on land without actually being on title.

I guarantee banks are unloading these things right now for 50% or less of thier value. I bet you could own or control these right now for $20-$25k and rent them out for $600 a month. Can you say $400 a month positive cashflow EACH!

I read this somewhere else but thought I'd share it with you good people.

Any thoughts? To get the GOOD deal I believe you'll have to go through the bank which means you have to go on title. I hate going on title anymore. I'd say just 10 of these would set most people free.

"Control everything, own nothing" is such a cool idea... Correct me if I am wrong, does it mean that I do not have to own a factory but as long as I can have the control over the buyer, then I can make money out of that. In that case, does "lead generation business" fall into this aspect?

I really forward for Diane and MJ reply on the "ownership" issue.

Thanks in advance

My answer is: own the value you intend to sell, yes. That does not necessarily need to be shares in a company.

Answer to your questions:

1. Who should be owning the larger share of the venture? The one who is putting the capital or the one who is building from scratch?

If we take a company for example (especially a corporation with shares as the determinant of ownership) you could do it in two ways (this is just my way of looking at it, so please, no angry notes):

-You, if you have no capital or little capital to put up yourself, can build up equity by finding customers who is willing to commit to buying from you when you are able to deliver your product/service.
-If you have money to put up then calculate how much money the venture will cost to build and then calculate how much of that value you can put up yourself (that will show how many percentage of ownership you will recieve of the venture. The rest goes to the investor/s who put up money for the other part of the venture. Proven demand is still a good way to focus on even in this kind of arrangement.

A third way is if you can put up equity of some sort as capital. Instead of pure cash. In Sweden we call it "apport emission" (emission is an "issue").

2. Is it recommended to enter into a partnership of any kind if one has not owned a successful business outright?

Up to each one. I would not agree to that though. If you are new to doing business as a living you certainly do not want to be involved with just about anyone, just because they may be helpful. Some people actually are downward dangerous to both your personal finance and health. But, don't listen do me. You will notice on your own.

Control everything, own nothing.

Setting up legal entities / structures is a way to achieve this.

For example, set up a trust and a company. The trust owns the shares in the company and the company trades as a business, making a profit.

Set up another company (a corporate trustee) to be the trustee of the trust. Make yourself(ves) the beneficiaries of the trust, and the director(s) of the trustee company. You, as a natural person do not own anything in this arrangement, however, in your role as director of the corporate trustee company, you control what happens. The trust and corporate trustee company also give you asset protection and control over how the income / capital gains are paid out (this can vary from year to year according to your circumstances).

In a similar way, you can also purchase investment property through the trust.

This is just a simple example. Laws and structures etc vary from country to country etc. I'm in Australia and have done the above. I'd be interested to hear other examples of how to control everything and own nothing.

If its up to me, I control, as opposed to owning.
To much liability in owning.

Bu you still own the corporate trustee, right? (you are the direct and shareholder of the company)

Doesn't this mean that if someone sues you they can get the shares of the corporate trustee? Being the main shareholders they should then be able to elect a new director or not?

you want to own as much as you can regardless of who is building the company/project or the one putting in the capital