Skip to main content

How They Blew It

I occasionally get sent books that don't fit with but are still interesting in their own right. How They Blew It by Jamie Oliver (no, not that Jamie Oliver) and Tony Goodwin is just such a book.

The premise is simple. It's a set of stories of how entrepreneurs and chief executives have lost vast sums of money for themselves or their companies (or both). There are some amazing stories in this collection, including the big names like Ken Lay, Dick Fuld and Jon Asgeir Johannesson, but also rather lesser known entrepreneurs and chief execs like Rueben Singh and Kevin Leach. Each of these key figures has nominally been worth a lot of money, and then made a huge mess of things.

Several of the people featured have been sent to jail. Two (Adolf Merckle and Christopher Foster) committed suicide. This is heavyweight stuff. Merckle is particularly fascinating psychologically in this respect as despite his big losses he was still worth several billion euros. He wasn't exactly poor - but couldn't stand the loss of face.

I was more than slightly surprised by the omission of Gerald Ratner, especially as none of the stories resemble what happened to him - but this is still an impressive collection. I'm sure you remember, but just in case, Ratner managed to wipe around £500m off the value of his business by disrespecting his customers and trashing his stock. He said, for instance, that they sold earrings for less than the price of a Marks and Spencer's prawn sandwich, and that were likely to be outlasted by the sandwich.

Of itself, the collection of stories is interesting, and encouraging for those who like to see others fall from a high place. But it also has significant value as a lesson  for business. Primarily the lesson seems to be about keeping your eye on the ball, understanding your business and market, and keeping the business clean, not tying it up in complex instruments. Being an entrepreneur is all about risk taking - but the stress here is on a calculated risk.

What is less stressed (though briefly mentioned) is the sheer luck involved in entrepreneurial success. This is too important a factor to be played down. A lot of these people (before their disaster) just happened to be the ones that statistically succeeded. Although the importance of luck is mentioned in the book's conclusions, the authors really don't understand this factor. So, for instance, they will comment that one individual clearly knew what he was doing because he predicted something on the stock market. No, he just happened to be lucky that day. As I write there is an octopus that has successfully predicted the outcome of every one of Germany's world cup games. That's the sort of expertise these people have.

Despite this error in understanding on the part of the authors, it's a fascinating collection of stories from life than any budding entrepreneur or would-be director of a large organization should read, if only to draw their own lessons. See at and
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you  


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope