Entrepreneurship is not a job but providing a solution

Coming up with a winning idea

Entrepreneurship is not a job. It’s about providing a solution, and pulling people and resources together to make that change. Workable business ideas are all about solving problems.

Q: I’m an engineering student in Portugal, but I feel I really was born to be an entrepreneur. I started creating logos for companies when I was about 15. I’m passionate about entrepreneurship and I’m always trying to think of new ways to start businesses. I want to follow my passion — but it’s tough when you have a great business idea, and no support. How do I find the right path? — João Bandeira, PortugalJoão, it’s always heartening to hear a young would-be entrepreneur talk about passion being a key driver in his life. The most successful entrepreneurs share that indescribable desire to change the world and make a positive difference in people’s lives.

And while it can be a struggle in the early days to find one project to pour all your enthusiasm into, just remember that successful entrepreneurs always manage to come up with an idea that’s right for them, and they make it work.

Your question reminds me of the origins of Ring — a wildly successful business that I have invested in.

For years, founder Jamie Siminoff had attempted to come up with a winning business idea — he even turned his garage in California into a lab for prototypes. As he worked there, though, Jamie was annoyed that he couldn’t hear the front doorbell.

One day he decided to fix this problem — he created a program to link the doorbell to his smartphone so that he could answer the door remotely with a video call. It was a great solution.

Jamie’s wife loved the idea as well: When Jamie was away, she could always see who was at the front door, and she felt safer.

Later, Jamie invited friends around to check out his other inventions, but the only thing anybody cared about was the doorbell!

He soon realised that this was the best business idea he ever had, and Ring was born. Just like that, the hours of searching for a winning idea were over.

João, the fact that you are constantly thinking of new businesses to start is a hugely valuable asset. Being proactive is a good thing, but I would strike a note of caution about the idea search.

I recently joined a host of fellow entrepreneurs in Los Angeles for Virgin Atlantic’s inaugural “Business Is an Adventure” event, and the topic of generating business ideas came up in a panel. Sean Rad, the CEO and founder of the dating app Tinder, made a great point.

“Entrepreneurship is not a job — it is a reaction to you wanting to solve a problem,” he said. “You have to wake up and say: ‘I am passionate about making a change, and I am passionate about pulling together people and resources... Not wake up and say: ‘I want to be an entrepreneur’ because I think you’ll kind of be lost... you’ll be looking for a problem instead of finding a problem looking for a solution.”

It’s a shrewd observation, and one that underlies the success of many companies, including Tinder.

In our daily lives, we all come across problems, annoyances or frustrations that we would love to see solved. Luckily, entrepreneurs are perfectly placed to solve those problems.

Interestingly enough, that’s how Virgin Atlantic began. After one particularly terrible experience as a passenger with an unscrupulous airline, I decided there must be a better way to fly. The next day, our team was on the phone with Boeing asking if they had any second-hand 747s that they were willing to sell.

Thankfully, they didn’t laugh and hang up — and the first Virgin airline was born.

So keep in mind that generating ideas is a great strength, but make sure that you’re spending your time and energy searching for solutions, not problems. That’s the best way to approach workable business ideas. Become a passionate problem-solver, and you’re half-way to being a successful entrepreneur.

Also keep in mind that once a great idea has been sparked, getting it off the ground can feel like a daunting task for anyone — especially if you have nobody there to support you, as you point out. I would advise you to take advantage of the connectivity offered by the Internet. Plenty of resources, networks and fellow entrepreneurs are just a click away.

Additionally, getting a mentor who can point you in the right direction and share his experiences is one of the best things you could ever do. You’d be surprised how many people are willing to help if you just ask. — Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate

By Richard Branson

Questions from readers will be answered in future columns. Please send them to Richard.Branson@nytimes.com. Please include your name, country, email address and the name of the website or publication where you read the column.

Related posts:

 Entrepreneur Liew Kee Sin from SP Setia to Eco World ...

Apr 25, 2015 ... Entrepreneur who drives the smaller Eco World group is still a much talked-about figure in corporate world. AT 57 years of age, Tan Sri Liew ...

Building the startup ecosystem

Dec 22, 2015 ... To create this, we strived to equip entrepreneurs with the right startup skills via our education portal, MaGIC Academy, expose  

 We don't need billionaire philanthropists, we need change

Jan 27, 2016 ... Nowadays I'm starting to see more and more entrepreneurs and business owners trying to figure this out, and it is quite inspiring. I think the

Venture scheme accelerates growth of start-ups Dec 26, 2015 ... KUALA LUMPUR: The New Entrepreneurs Foundation's (myNEF) unit Rave Ventures Sdn Bhd is looking to raise RM50 million to     Startups sharing ideas and seeking validation from ...

House buyers' traps: purchasers lose their homes because of defaulting developers

WHY does this keep happening to house buyers in Malaysia?

This incident happened two years ago in Taiping where a laid-back community of mainly retirees found the roof over their heads nearly, and in some cases, actually, blown away. The purchasers had paid the developer and had moved into their houses and lived there for 10 years. Problem was that the purchasers paid the developers in cash remittance without taking out end-financing loans.

Unknown to the purchasers, the developer did not pay the developer’s bank to settle the developer’s loan vide bridging loans. The developer’s charge remained and grew into bigger indebtedness to the bank.

Apparently, the developer’s bank had not been collecting payment of the loan from the developer, even as the developer was collecting the instalments of the purchase price from the purchasers, as provided in the sale & purchase agreement (S&P) schedule.

Having waited for 10 years for the developer to settle his loan, the bank realised that the developer was not going to pay; that foreclosure was unavoidable.

The bank had a problem. Apart from the developer’s loan having ballooned over the years because of the bank’s laxity in not insisting on the developer paying promptly, there was also political repercussion. There are a few issues here, namely, the destruction of a settled community in a pleasant location, the injustice of the S&P; the solicitousness for developers in preference to purchasers on the part of the powers that be; and the embarrassment resulting from the bank’s philanthropic ramifications.

Has the bank breached the fiduciary duty of care to the purchasers as the bridging loan financier to the defaulting developer?

The crux of the problem is that the Housing Ministry-prescribed S&P allows the developer to build the purchaser’s house with the instalments of the purchase price paid by the purchaser from the day the S&P is signed. On top of this, and even more seriously, the developer is allowed to borrow from the developer’s banks on the security of the purchaser’s property.

Where a purchaser has paid the purchase price in full to the developer, and the developer does not pay the developer’s loan secured by the purchaser’s property, the developer’s bank may foreclose, auction off the purchaser’s property to recover the developer’s loan.

The developer suffers nothing. It has received the purchase price and pocketed it. The developer borrowed from its bank and gave the purchaser’s property as security, and with foreclosure the developer’s bank recovers its loan, and so the developer owes no money to the bank. It takes no risk, suffers no loss.

Purchasers the victims

It is the purchaser who loses. He loses his house and he has to settle the loan he took to buy the house with increasing interest on it. He is blacklisted, which means he can never borrow again. He may never buy a house again! Is this fair to the buyer who never did anything wrong to the developer or to the developer’s bank? In the Taiping housing fiasco, some of the purchasers had to buy their houses again at prices bloated by 10 years’ arrears of interest (i.e. pay the developer’s debt) to stave off foreclosure.

Who is to blame for this sad state of affairs? We will consider each one in turn. The most obvious candidate is, of course, the developer. Not so. It is the Housing Ministry for providing a standard form S&P that allows this to happen. Firstly, the S&P allows the developer to borrow money from a bank with a charge on the whole housing development land before it is sub-divided and sold. This pre-sale loan is referred to in the recitals to the S&P. This is understandable as the developer needs money before sale. The result of this is that the purchaser buys an encumbered property but the purchaser is not told how much of the developer’s loan, if apportioned equally, is borne by each purchaser’s sub-divided land (the redemption sum). After sale, the developer collects money from the purchaser from the day the S&P is signed, and should be able to make use of it to meet all the expenses of the development. However, after the sub-divided land is sold, the developer keeps borrowing, and no effort is made to keep the purchaser informed about the increasing amount of the developer’s loan/ the redemption sum.

The purchaser’s consent to the additional, post-sale loans is taken for granted. In fact, the purchaser cannot withhold his consent as long as the purchaser receives some fig-leaf protection from the developer’s bank in the form of an undertaking not to foreclose.

What is the use to the purchaser of the developer’s bank’s undertaking not to foreclose? What the purchaser needs is the absolute undertaking by the developer and the developer’s bank that a purchaser who has paid the purchase price will not face foreclosure vis-à-vis the disclaimer(s). This would have helped the Taiping purchasers. It is, therefore, a matter between the developer’s bank and the developer, with the Housing Ministry playing the proper protective role required of it by law, to ensure that such an undertaking/ disclaimer is given by the developer’s bank to the purchaser. This and other issues arising from the S&P have been raised by HBA with the Housing Ministry which continues to procrastinate.

To the developer’s bank, the loans to the developer on the security of the purchaser’s land is regarded as if it is the developer’s property entirely; it is of no concern to the developer’s bank that some of the purchasers have paid the developer and the developer may or may not have forwarded some of these payments to the developer’s bank.

The developer’s bank’s concern is whether the whole loan has been settled by the developer-borrower. If not, the developer’s bank feels secure in the knowledge that the entire housing development land is available to the developer’s bank to recover its loan/s. In so far as the developer’s bank is concerned, payments made by each purchaser to the developer is of no consequence. The transaction between the bank and the developer is the one that matters.

Under the then S&P, there is also no control over how much the developer should be allowed to borrow, for what purpose and by when it should be settled. Each loan to the developer increases the risks to the purchaser.

In the recent past, developer’s borrowed only for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the housing development. The developer was allowed to borrow twice only – once before sale and once after sale. Although the developer was not required to disclose the redemption sum, there was a very important safeguard. And that is, the developer had to settle the redemption sum to the developer’s bank before completion of construction so that at the end of the 24- or 36-month construction period, as the case may be, the property was free from the developer’s encumbrances and safe from foreclosure, even if the property was not transferred to the purchaser just as promptly. It was at least safe from foreclosure.

Bank initiatives

Banks/financial institutions should take the initiative to recover progressively the loan it had given the developer. Banks should stipulate as a condition for giving loans to their customers (developers) that the latter open its Housing Development Account (HDA), a statutory requirement, with the same bank and require the instalments of the purchase price be paid into it, and authorise the bank to deduct the developer’s loan by instalments from the HDA so that when the purchaser completes payment, the developer’s loan is also settled.

There is no such statutory requirement in the S&P so that if it happens at all, it’s serendipity!

HBA had meetings with the Housing Ministry to propose changes to the law and S&P with the view of giving greater protection to purchasers within the framework of the sell-and-build (which Rehda defend so fervently) but some pertinent ones had been objected by Rehda.

As if that is not enough, the ministry too have rejected those proposals vis-a-vis pre-determination of redemption sums in the S&P transaction. And that notwithstanding the Housing Development Act 1966 stating that it is inter alia for “the protection of the interests of purchaser.”

The next continuing article will dwell on the new “protection” or whatever in lieu thereof approved by the Attorney-General’s Chambers vis-à-vis “redemptions and disclaimers”.

Buyers beware by Chang Kim Loong

Chang Kim Loong is secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association: www.hba.org.my, a non-profit, non-governmental organisation.

Related posts:
 

Who is responsible: developer, contractor, local council ... Nov 15, 2014 ... By CHANG KIM LOONG - Buyers Beware The Star Nov 15 2014. Chang Kim Loong is the honorary secretary-general of the National House ...

 

 Reponsible housing developers' traits and qualiies ...

Feb 1, 2015 ... By Chang Kim Loong AMN who is the secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association. Related posts: Who is responsible: ...

 Home, sweet home for young couples will lead to ...

Oct 12, 2014 ... HBA secretary-general Chang Kim Loong also said the housing scheme for young married couples was commendable. However Chang said ...

 Malaysian homes more unaffordable than Singapore ...

Oct 14, 2014 ... Its secretary-general, Chang Kim Loong, said speculators have taken advantage of the low entry cost of buying a property at the expense of ...

Chinese hacker pleads guilty, deserves respect whether guilty or innocent

A Chinese national named Su Bin pleaded guilty in the US on Wednesday to conspiring to hack into the computer networks of several major US defense contractors to obtain sensitive information, according to a US Department of Justice statement. The information allegedly includes technical files about F-22 and F-35 fighter jets and C-17 military transport aircraft.

The statement says "Su Bin admitted to playing an important role in a conspiracy, originating in China," where he has two accomplices. Some US media have conjectured that the two accomplices must be Chinese military personnel.

Su was arrested in Canada in July 2014, and was handed over to the US this February. The Chinese government has denied any involvement in Su's case, and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has asked the US to ensure the privacy and legal rights of Chinese citizens on US soil.

Plea bargaining is a common US judicial practice. Defendants can plead guilty in exchange for softer punishments. The disadvantage of this practice is that it is hard to know what the defendants truly think, and whether there might be any wrongs in the judgments.

Every country is gathering intelligence. The largest and most well-known information-collecting agencies are the CIA and FBI in the US. The FBI has even listed China as their top target. Recent years have seen the FBI arresting quite a few "Chinese spies," but most of them proved to be innocent. In the meantime, China has kept a low profile in reporting the exposure of US spies out of various considerations.

In most cases, governments won't acknowledge these spies after they have been caught. For example, whenever China intercepted spies from Western countries, the governments they served routinely denied any connection and even mobilized the Western media to attack China's human rights and win over sympathy.

We have no reliable source to identify whether Su has stolen these secrets and transferred them to the Chinese government. If he has, we are willing to show our gratitude and respect for his service to our country. On the secret battlefield without gunpowder, China needs special agents to gather secrets from the US. As for Su, be he recruited by the Chinese government or driven by economic benefits, we should give him credit for what he is doing for the country.

If Su was wronged and forced to plead guilty, he should have our sympathy. As the "war of information" between China and the US continues, there will probably be more Chinese framed as spies and jailed in the US. This is a tragedy of the times, and we hope the Chinese working in sensitive professions in the US can protect themselves.

At the helm of international public discourse, the US is able to define whether certain activities are espionage or not. When US espionage is exposed, the US media will try to divert public attention and tone down the case. But when the CIA or FBI catches suspects, hyperbole about these cases makes headlines in US media.

The most infamous case is that of Edward Snowden, who revealed the global US surveillance program PRISM. The whistleblower is wanted by the US government, which refuses to reflect on its behavior, but keeps criticizing China for espionage without solid proof.

China lags behind the US in technology. The existence of US cyberspace military forces is openly known to the public, and its capability is way higher than Chinese "hackers." But it doesn't mean that China cannot fight back in the face of ill-founded US accusations of Chinese spies. China should uncover Washington's brazen hypocrisy with concrete evidence. - Global Times

Related posts:
 

No privacy on the Net !

Jun 23, 2013 ... Revelations about PRISM, a US government program that harvests data on the ... against the US Internet surveillance program of the NSA, PRISM, .... US Spy Snowden Says U.S. Hacking China Since 2009 ... Labels: civil liberties , Computer hackers , Cyber Attacks , Edward Snowden , Espionage , FBI ...

 Big Brother USA's spy charges are absurd; Washington ...

May 21, 2014 ... Documents leaked by former Central Intelligence Agency contractor Edward Snowden detailed the National Security Agency's (NSA) ...

U.S. cyber attacks, latest data published, China denies ...

May 20, 2014 ... After the Prism program leaked by Edward Snowden, the United States was accused by the whole world. However, it has never made ...

USA Spying, the Super-Snooper !

Oct 31, 2013 ... ... intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden.A top secret map dated August 13 , 2010 lists nearly a hundred surveillance facilities worldwide, ...

 Foreign tech firms pose threat on Internet; World's largest ...

Jun 4, 2014 ... In June 2013, Edward Snowden, a former US National Security Bureau contractor, revealed US intelligence agencies were conducting ...

    New security structure needed: Trust, collaboration key ...

May 22, 2014 ... ... charging five Chinese nationals of alleged commercial espionage, citing Edward Snowden's revelations of US spying operations worldwide.

U.S. cyber attacks, latest data published, China denies accusations...

A spokesperson for China's State Internet Information Office on Monday published the latest data of U.S. cyber attack, saying that Chinese... 

Big Brother USA's spy charges are absurd; Washington plays victim of espionage; Cyberthief crying wolf

As the most notorious surveillance country, the U.S. indictment of Chinese military officers seems almost insolent in a world still reeli...