Financial Adviser: 5 Business Lessons from Jaime Gonzalez, Founder and CEO of Arthaland Corporation

Jaime Gonzalez is a seasoned investment banker, corporate advisor, and real estate developer whose career spans from finance to public service and sustainable property development in the Philippines and across Asia.

Before establishing Arthaland as a pioneer in green real estate, González built a distinguished career in investment banking and advisory services. He is the founder, chairman and CEO of American Orient Capital Partners, an Asia-focused advisory and investment firm established in 1988. Through this platform, he has advised corporations, financial institutions, and investors on mergers and acquisitions and strategic investments across multiple markets in the region.

González’s professional background also includes senior roles in both the private and public sectors. His academic training reflects the analytical foundation that has shaped his career. González graduated cum laude from De La Salle University with degrees in economics and accounting, later earning an MBA from Harvard Business School and becoming a Certified Public Accountant.

At Arthaland, González helped transform a dormant listed company into one of the Philippines’ most respected sustainable real estate developers. Under his leadership, the company developed a portfolio of residential, office, and mixed-use projects distinguished by third-party environmental certifications such as LEED and BERDE.

Arthaland’s developments, including landmark projects in Bonifacio Global City and other growth areas, have positioned the company as a leader in environmentally responsible and institutionally credible property development.

Across decades of work in finance and real estate, González has built a reputation for disciplined decision-making, ethical partnerships, and long-term thinking. Today, he continues to guide Arthaland’s growth with a philosophy that views real estate not only as a financial asset, but as a platform for sustainable development.

How did González’s background in finance shape Arthaland’s growth and long-term strategy? How did González differentiate Arthaland in a competitive real estate market and position it for long-term success?

Here are the five business lessons every entrepreneur can learn from Jaime Gonzalez, founder and CEO of Arthaland Corporation:

ALSO READ

Financial Adviser: 5 Business Lessons Everyone Can Learn from William Uy, Vice Chairman of South Asialink Finance

Financial Adviser: 5 Business Lessons Everyone Can Learn from Cecilio Pedro, Founder and Chairman of Hapee Toothpaste

Building a career by taking the hard path first forces a person to confront complexity early. Over time, this kind of experience trains them to think beyond quick wins and to weigh trade-offs carefully. When someone later becomes an entrepreneur, this judgment becomes indispensable, because building a business is less about ideas and more about making decisions under uncertainty, often with no margin for error.

This process also builds credibility that cannot be manufactured later. Years spent in demanding environments create a track record that others can trust. Mentors, partners, investors, and future employees tend to back people who have already proven they can carry responsibility. When an individual launches a business after such a career, confidence in that person often precedes confidence in the business itself.

Beyond credibility, hard experiences expose how systems truly work, not just how individual tasks are performed. Leaders who have seen systems fail are better equipped to build companies that are disciplined and sustainable. In this way, the hard path does not merely prepare someone to become an entrepreneur; it prepares them to become a long-term leader whose decisions are grounded in experience and purpose.

Gonzalez’s entry into entrepreneurship was not accidental or abrupt. It was the cumulative result of years spent in demanding roles that refined both his technical skill and judgment. Rather than rushing into business ownership early, he invested heavily in building competence and credibility first.

His decision to pursue a CPA while working, followed by an MBA in the United States, gave him both technical fluency and strategic perspective. A defining trait in his early career was his willingness to submit to difficulty. Working closely with a demanding mentor like Bobby Ongpin forced Gonzalez to operate under pressure and to learn at close range, where accountability mattered more than position.

Becoming a partner at a young age was not simply a promotion; it signaled that he had earned trust in a challenging environment. His international assignments further strengthened his readiness for entrepreneurship. When he ran SGV’s advisory operations out of Hong Kong, he dealt with cross-border complexity and high-level decision-making across Asia.

Gonzalez’s move into public service added another layer to his experience. He worked within institutions shaped by political constraints, which required discipline, judgment, and restraint. These skills translated directly to entrepreneurship, where founders must negotiate with regulators, partners, and financiers while managing uncertainty.

The founding of AIA Capital marked a turning point in his career, when years of preparation moved into execution. His role in structuring higher-return investments while managing risk reflected a disciplined approach to entrepreneurship grounded in structure rather than instinct.

Gonzalez’s gradual immersion into real estate was not speculative but analytical. Years of advisory work taught him that assets ultimately rest on real underlying value, particularly land. Spotting opportunity in a dormant company with underutilized Bonifacio properties showed his conviction, built on data and experience rather than hype.

“After college, I worked for Far East Bank, but after less than two years, I decided to take my MBA in the United States,” Gonzalez says. “Well, before starting my MBA, I did my CPA review at night and was able to take the CPA exam. I went on leave for one month, and after passing the CPA, I pursued my MBA in the United States.

“Then while in the US, Bobby Ongpin reached out to me because he knew my father, and he told me that I come back to Manila and work at SGV, initially as his assistant. I worked closely with Bobby, and after about two years, I became partner at SGV. I was very young.

“But it was tough. I mean, Bobby was not an easy guy to work with. He and I got along with each other, so we worked together as partners. At a certain point, he said, ‘Why don’t you run the SGV office in Hong Kong?’ So I ran what was then the management services side, which was called the advisory side. Although I was obviously a CPA, I took care of the other side. So out of Hong Kong, I was running around the region, advising companies all over on different things.

“Then one day, he spoke to me and told me that he had been sworn in by Marcos to be Minister of Trade and Industry. He said, ‘Why don’t you come and help me as one of my deputies?’ So I went back to Manila in 1983, and I was in charge of what was called the trading company of the government, PITC. I was also in charge of the trade negotiations with the socialist and other centrally planned economies. I set up an office in Beijing, and I had an office in Moscow. I used to travel to Eastern Europe all the time to negotiate with the governments there. It was fun because that was before, when it was still the Soviet Union, before what was called perestroika.

“Then in 1988, he said, ‘Why don’t we put together an investment bank?’ And we were able to convince the chairman of AIG at the time, Hank Greenberg, Mr. Maurice Greenberg, who is very well known internationally, that the insurance company of AIG needed to look at other instruments to invest in.

“Traditionally, insurance companies are very conservative. They put money in AAA bonds and get AAA returns, which are low risk but also low return. So we said, “Hey, if we can package deals appropriately, we should be able to control the risk and get a higher return.” That’s how we created an investment bank, which we called AIA Capital. AIA is the name of AIG in Asia.

“They had the majority, while Bobby and I had a 40 percent minority in the company, and we had offices all over the region. After that, we did various things. I was doing general advisory work, but most of it involved mergers and acquisitions or rearranging funding for projects, either debt or equity. Part of those projects were real estate–based. And you know, in Asia, at the end of the day, all companies have underlying real estate. So we got involved in real estate.

“I was doing real estate deals at the time, here, in Thailand, and in Malaysia. I also had a fund that I was using to invest in different projects, both here in the Philippines and elsewhere.

“Then there was a company we discovered that had no officers and no board. It was delinquent in filing with the government, but it had two interesting properties in Bonifacio. And this was in the early days like people were still asking whether Bonifacio would be successful. But I liked the two properties.

“At that point, prices were still very different. As you know, prices in Bonifacio have gone up so much since then. I used to run in Bonifacio through the cogon fields. And I said to myself, property in the Philippines will always be good. I had high confidence in the growth of the economy. It’s a growing population, and Filipinos like to invest in property. So I decided that this was the area I wanted to be in.

“I spoke to my partners and said, ‘Let’s put money in here, let’s revive the company, and we’ll do something about it, ’no.” They agreed. One was a big Asian company and the other was a big bank in Austria. They all agreed.”

Turning crisis, capital scarcity, and values into a sustainable business reveals whether a startup is built to last or only to perform when conditions are easy. When a young company struggles to raise enough funding to build the business, crisis quickly exposes weaknesses in leadership and decision-making.

With limited capital, founders can no longer rely on easy funding or favorable market conditions. They are forced to rely on judgment instead. This pressure sharpens thinking around risk, priorities, and trade-offs—the same skills required to build a business that can endure over time.

Values play an important role in this process because crisis turns them from abstract ideas into everyday standards. Decisions made under pressure—how partners are treated, how risks are explained, and how losses are handled—begin to define the startup’s reputation early on.

When founders act consistently during difficult periods, they build trust with employees, partners, and investors. That trust becomes a real competitive advantage, one that startups built only in stable conditions often struggle to develop.

Gonzalez’s response to crisis shows that his advantage did not come from capital strength but from judgment and values applied under pressure. When the Asian crisis wiped out expected funding and partners stepped back, he did not rush to replace capital at any cost. Instead, he made a deliberate choice to proceed alone, even when it meant using his own money for several years.

This was not about showing courage for its own sake. It reflected a clear distinction in his thinking between borrowing to gamble and borrowing to invest in a real asset. He accepted debt only when it was tied to something tangible and lasting, which allowed him to remain stable and patient rather than pressured.

Scarcity also forced discipline. With no excess capital, every decision had to justify itself. Gonzalez did not expand prematurely or chase projects to create momentum. Instead, he slowed the pace, protected downside risk, and focused on survival through structure rather than speed. This restraint became an advantage later, because the business was built on careful capital allocation instead of optimism. The crisis taught him that endurance matters more than scale in the early stages of a company.

Values became the third lever that turned constraint into strength. When funding was limited, he did not seek partners based solely on financial capacity. His meeting with Richard Po was not a pitch session but a conversation about philosophy. This choice mattered.

By prioritizing alignment over money, Gonzalez reduced the risk of conflict later, when decisions became harder and trade-offs unavoidable. The partnership worked precisely because it was formed during a period of scarcity, when intentions were clear and expectations realistic.

Transparency further reinforced this advantage. Rather than presenting certainty, Gonzalez openly acknowledged risk, imperfection, and potential problems. By involving partners in analysis and solutions, he shifted relationships from transactional to collaborative. This approach built trust, which proved more durable than capital alone.

“But then the Asian crisis hit us in 2008,” he says. “They didn’t put in money. They disappeared from behind me. So I decided I would just proceed on my own. I ended up putting in my own money for three years. The salary of my first staff all came from my pocket.

“To start with, I borrowed some money personally to fund the capital injection, which I wasn’t so happy with because I don’t like to borrow money. But you have to think about the risk. At the end of the day, you borrow money and put it into real estate, into an underlying asset. I’m not borrowing money to spend. That’s the difference.

“I didn’t have money to develop. Then around 2010, my son told me that he had good friends whose father was really interested in getting involved in real estate here in the Philippines. So I met the late Richard Po, the owner of Century Tuna over lunch. We didn’t talk about any deal. We just talked about our philosophy of doing business.

“After discussing his philosophy and my philosophy of doing business, you realize, ‘Hey, there seems to be a match.’ He was a really good guy, and I miss him.  He and I became very good friends, and he eventually said, ‘Let’s be partners.’ So they came in and this was the vehicle that I called Arthaland.

“And that, by the way, is what we do with prospective partners in Arthaland. We make sure their philosophy is the same as ours. Because if the philosophy is different, it won’t work. It’s not worth it.

“Artha is an old Sanskrit word. It means wealth, not only material wealth, but also spiritual wealth. So for us, it’s not only about money. We also want to do something good. That was our group’s idea. So Arthaland stands for wealth of life. And as you know, wealth of life is not only about money. That’s why, when partners invest, you have to make sure you’re not getting one over them, that you’re equal partners. Number two is full transparency. If there’s a problem, we explain everything to them. We explain our approach. Full transparency.

“We tell them nothing is perfect. Nothing is 100 percent sure. Before we make an investment or buy a property, we explain how we analyze it. And as we develop projects, there will always be problems. When that happens, we tell them, ‘Okay, this is the problem.’ Basta, full transparency. That’s the only thing you can really offer your partners, along with your ability to think of solutions. You explain, ‘These are the solutions. What do you think?’ So they become part of the process.

“I’ve had difficult partners before, and that was very unfortunate. But with the Po family, it’s the best partnership I’ve ever had. They’re good people, very supportive. They believe in what we’re doing, and they always make time for us. What else can I ask for? They’re a good family.

“Richard loved it. He loved hearing about our projects. But there were times when we showed him a property and he said, ‘You know what? I don’t like it.’ We never take votes in the board. If one side doesn’t like something, we say, “Okay, can we approach it another way?” And if they still don’t like it, we drop it. We won’t do it. Both sides have to agree. Even if I really like the project, if they don’t want it, I won’t do it. Because we’re equal partners.”

When a company relies on focus rather than size, it avoids the trap of competing on resources alone and instead competes on clarity about what it stands for, what it will not do, and where it can win.

Differentiation becomes sharper under a focused strategy. Instead of trying to serve everyone, a focused organization concentrates on a specific set of standards. This allows the business to deliver depth rather than breadth, and quality rather than volume. Over time, this creates a reputation that large organizations often struggle to replicate because their scale forces compromise.

Innovation also improves when focus replaces scale as the driver of growth. Smaller, focused teams can move faster, test ideas more carefully, and adjust without the friction that comes with large structures. This kind of innovation tends to be more sustainable because it is grounded in real needs rather than trends.

Focused companies must allocate resources carefully, protect the downside, and choose partnerships selectively. This discipline often leads to better risk management and more resilient business models. When markets change, focused firms are less exposed to shocks because they have not overextended themselves.

From the beginning, Gonzalez accepted that Arthaland could not win by matching larger developers in land bank size or project volume. Instead of treating this as a handicap, he treated it as a design constraint.

Rather than competing broadly, Gonzalez anchored Arthaland on three non-negotiables: quality, sustainability, and integrity. These were not marketing slogans but operational filters. By committing to third-party sustainability certification, he deliberately raised the bar for himself. This did two things. It limited the number of projects Arthaland could pursue, which preserved focus, and it created credibility that did not depend on size. Larger firms could claim sustainability, but certification forced discipline and consistency that many scaled organizations struggle to maintain.

Second, Gonzalez used hands-on leadership as a substitute for hierarchy. Being small allowed him to stay close to the organization. He spoke directly to employees at every level and made it clear that execution, not titles, kept the company running. This closeness created speed and accountability. Instead of relying on layers of management to enforce standards, he focused his leadership energy where it mattered most: people and execution.

Third, Gonzales rejected formula-driven growth. Large organizations rely on repeatable templates because complexity forces standardization. Gonzalez did the opposite. Arthaland asked partners what they wanted to achieve and structured each deal accordingly. This bespoke approach would be impossible at large scale, but it became a competitive edge for a focused, mid-sized firm.

Fourth, Gonzalez competed through risk sharing instead of asset accumulation. He did not equate ownership with control. By bringing in joint venture partners and sharing upside, he limited downside exposure while preserving decision authority. This allowed Arthaland to grow without overstretching capital.

“In Arthaland, we were full partners, but Mr Po told me, ‘You run it,’” Gonzalez says. “So I ran it, and I worked closely with him and his sons. At the start, we said, ‘You know, it’s not easy to be a new, small real estate company. You’re up against all the big boys, ’no? So how do we differentiate ourselves?’

“We said that, without criticizing my friends, just to differentiate ourselves, we would stand for three things. First, high quality, we will not compromise on quality. Second, all our projects will be sustainable, and this will have to be certified by third parties, both locally and internationally.

“That certification is important because I don’t just want to claim that we’re sustainable. I want other parties to vet us. And then there’s the third value, which everyone talks about: integrity. The good thing about being relatively small or medium-sized is that you can put your arms around the organization. If it’s too big, it becomes difficult.

“So what we decided to do was to turn what seemed to be a disadvantage, being new and small, into a major advantage. We became very hands-on in whatever we do. I talk to everyone here, down to the janitor. I have no problems with that.

“I always tell them that regardless of your level in the organization, you play a critical role, just as much as I do. Your role is as valuable as mine, except that the scope is different. If the person who cleans the offices stops cleaning, we won’t be able to function.

“So it’s just a different scope, but everyone is important. And when I address the staff, I always say that the most important resource of the company is not the properties we own—it’s the people who work in the organization.

“So we take care of them, and my door is always open. Anyone who wants to talk to me can always come and talk to me; it’s not a problem. I also tell them that they have to work hard, and I always tell them that I work harder than they do. This morning, my first email was at five o’clock in the morning.

“So I tell them, I don’t ask you to do more than what I’m doing. And that’s how we started. From 2019 to 2024, over a five-year period, we grew five times. Oo, that was five times growth in five years. And today, we have enough properties in the pipeline to grow another three times.

“Fortunately for us, because of the kind of properties we develop and what we’re doing, many property owners are now approaching us for joint ventures. Of course, there are some who simply want to sell their property to us. But they all like dealing with us because of what we’ve done.

“There also seems to be an advantage in working with a medium-sized company. We don’t have a formula. We always ask them what their objectives are, and we try to structure an agreement that works for both sides. It’s not a formula approach—and we’re able to do that because we’re medium-sized. Normally, if you have so many projects, you have to have a formula. Otherwise, you won’t have enough time to do everything.

“In life, it’s good to share to minimize your risk. And that’s the same formula we have in Arthaland. In our projects, I don’t mind bringing in joint venture partners and sharing the profits, as long as I can control the risk. I don’t like to own 100 percent of the company and have 100 percent of the risk. That’s not a wise decision.”

Building a team that carries the mission forward recognizes that no organization succeeds on strategy alone. Over time, results depend on whether people feel personally responsible for the work and its outcome.

When a team is motivated only by incentives, commitment tends to weaken once pressure rises or rewards change. A mission-driven team, by contrast, sustains effort even when conditions are difficult, because people understand why their work matters.

In moments of uncertainty, leaders cannot monitor every decision. Teams that feel invested act with judgment rather than compliance. They solve problems proactively and make decisions aligned with the organization’s values, even when no one is watching. This sense of ownership cannot be imposed through contracts or compensation structures; it must be built through trust, clarity, and shared purpose.

A culture where people feel invested also strengthens execution. When individuals believe they are part of something larger than their role, they take pride in their contribution. That pride translates into higher accountability, better collaboration, and a willingness to do the difficult work that organizations often avoid.

Gonzalez built his team by treating people as co-builders of the enterprise rather than as hired specialists paid to execute isolated tasks. Compensation mattered, but it was never positioned as the main reason to join or stay.

From the beginning, he framed the organization as a place where experienced professionals could apply judgment and take pride in what they built. This appealed to senior executives who had left large property firms and felt constrained by bureaucracy or constant internal competition. Arthaland offered something different: autonomy and the chance to help design a company from the ground up.

A key insight in his approach was how he converted diversity of experience into collective intelligence. Instead of imposing a fixed system, he created a culture of comparison and choice. When problems arose, the team drew from different companies they had come from, discussed alternatives openly, and selected the best solution. This process did more than solve problems. It signaled respect for experience and reinforced the idea that everyone contributed to how the organization worked.

Gonzalez also understood that leadership credibility had to be visible. He did not delegate culture downward while remaining distant at the top. By staying closely involved and being present in discussions, he established accountability without formal hierarchy. This closeness reduced ambiguity and allowed trust to form quickly, which is critical in a young organization.

Perhaps most important was how he reframed risk and success for his team. He did not promise certainty or easy outcomes. Instead, he invited people to commit to a shared direction. By emphasizing pride and shared achievement, Gonzalez created a team that stayed engaged beyond incentives. The result was an organization that could absorb mistakes and learn.

“Our first project was Arya Residence,” he says. “This building was a property owned by one of the banks. In those days, banks were selling off non-performing loans, so I bought it from one of them. It was a two-tower condo. It was green and sustainable, and now it’s the preferred condo in the country.

“At that time, we were also lucky. A number of major property companies had executives leaving. And when those executives left, there was some reluctance to join another major property company because they would be competing head-on.

“But they looked at us as independent, medium-sized. So during the first two years, I was able to build up the organization. I attracted key people from different property companies, and we used that to our advantage.

“We would sit around the table and say, ‘Okay, here’s the problem. What’s the solution?’ Someone would say, ‘Oh, in my company, we do this.’ And I’d say, ‘Okay, let’s choose the best solution.’ So we developed our own approach.

“At that point, to be honest, I needed a chief executive officer. I was chairman, and I continued to have my investment bank, which was thriving. So I needed a president with real estate experience locally.

“I was able to hire that person, along with a chief financial officer, someone on the technical side, and someone on sales and marketing. And that continues to be our structure. The problem with hiring is that you spend a lot of time talking. But to be honest, you don’t really know until you hire the person. You really don’t know. It’s a gamble.

“Over the next six to 12 months, when you start working more closely with each other, that’s when you begin to understand. And yes, we’ve had hiring mistakes. It happens. But fortunately, in some cases, I hired someone who worked out and helped quite a bit.

“The important thing is that they have to buy into what you’re planning to do. They have to share the same vision. Of course, they have to be well compensated. But they’re not entrepreneurs. What you try to give them is a sense of ownership, that if my efforts to build this company as a CEO are successful, then they can be proud to have been part of that. That’s the message you give them, and they will be well compensated.

“So it’s not only about money. They have to have the same commitment that you have and the same satisfaction when things are achieved. And that’s the same thing we tell all our staff here: have a sense of ownership, not ownership in money, but ownership in pride in what you’re doing.”

In most meaningful decisions, especially in leadership and entrepreneurship, certainty comes after action, not before it. If leaders wait until all risks disappear, opportunities pass and momentum is lost.

Following a well-considered decision keeps organizations moving. Risk does not disappear through hesitation; it often increases. Acting allows leaders to test assumptions, gather real feedback, and adjust course. Even when a decision turns out to be imperfect, movement creates learning. Staying still creates none.

There is also a psychological dimension. Once a decision is made, commitment matters. Constantly second-guessing weakens confidence, both for the leader and for the people who follow. Teams draw reassurance from leaders who can say, “This is the path we chose, now let’s make it work.” That conviction stabilizes execution in uncertain conditions.

Gonzalez’s approach to decision-making under risk is neither reckless nor purely instinctive. What stands out is the sequence he follows: analysis first, acceptance of risk second, and commitment third. He does not deny uncertainty; he defines it. He studies situations carefully, identifies the risks explicitly, and decides whether those risks are acceptable. Only after that does instinct come into play. His “gut feel” is not guesswork. It is judgment formed through years of exposure to failure and consequence.

A critical insight in his method is his acceptance of failure as a cost of progress, not as a signal to stop. By acknowledging early that “anyone successful will have major failures,” he removes the emotional paralysis that often follows risk. Failure, for him, is feedback, not identity.

Gonzalez also separates decision ownership from outcome certainty. Once he decides to move forward, he commits fully and focuses on execution. This is where many leaders falter. They make a decision but keep one foot out, which weaken results. His willingness to stand by a decision, even when it later proves imperfect, builds decisiveness in both himself and those around him.

What distinguished Gonzalez’s decision-making was his habit of keeping alternatives open. He committed only after careful analysis, but once he moved forward, he stayed flexible in how he executed. Rather than becoming attached to a single outcome, he watched for new openings, adjusted when conditions changed, and treated setbacks as signals to explore better paths rather than reasons to stop.

His optimism is also practical. The belief that there is always another door allows him to keep options open and move forward without getting stuck on a single path. His decision-making is grounded in fairness and long-term reputation. Leaving “something on the table” is not generosity; it is strategy. By protecting relationships and credibility, he preserves future options, which matter most when operating in uncertain environments.

“I’ve made major mistakes,” Gonzalez says. “I have scars on my back. Anyone successful and I’m still working at it will have major failures. You have to learn from your failures and move forward. You can’t say you’ve never failed; that’s not true. Someone’s making bola if they say that, you know what I mean? Everyone’s made a mistake.

“You study things very carefully, you think about the risk, and you say, okay, this is the risk. When I was starting Arthaland, others advised me not to do it. A relative who worked in one of the major banks said, ‘Tell Jimmy not to do it.’

“But at the end of the day, you have a feeling in your gut whether it’s a good deal or not. So you move forward. But you have to work at it, you really have to work at it. No backup.

“My son is better than me. By the way, your children have to be better than you, that’s how the race improves. His name is Enrique. He doesn’t get emotionally attached to his businesses. He bought a data center from a Hong Kong company, and then he sold it to a telecom company. He’s a serial entrepreneur. Marami siyang negosyo. He’s my retirement plan. He’s a good guy. He works harder than I do.

“If he wanted to do something and was convinced about it, even if I knew it wasn’t the right thing, I let him do it. Because the best lesson is for him to fall flat and learn. If I prohibit him, he’ll never learn. It’s better for him to lose money early on, when the amounts are still controllable.

“Sometimes, we discussed things at length, then he said, “No, I’m convinced.” So I said, “Okay, go ahead.” If he loses money, then that’s part of learning. That’s a different approach. If I control him too much, he’ll just say, ‘That was my father’s decision.’ So it has to be his decision. That’s the difference.

“All entrepreneurs are crazy. You can’t dwell too much on the what-ifs. You focus instead on what you have to do so you won’t fail. You have to think positively. Of course, the chance of failure is always there. As I said, I’ve failed in a number of investments. But you have to have confidence in moving forward. You also have to believe that you can think things through and make things work.

“I work very hard. I work seven days a week. I don’t have work hours. But I also believe that if you think things through very carefully, you can always find solutions, even when there are problems.

“That’s why I always tell my staff, if there’s a problem, there’s always a solution. If one door closes, another door will open. It’s up to you to look for the opportunity. There will always be another door. Always. For me, there’s always a way to make it work, to make sense to the banks, to make sense to the partners.

“Let’s say you’re working with one financing source. You negotiate, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to work. You have to know when to stop talking. In my experience, once you stop, another opportunity will always present itself. Always. But you have to know how to identify it.

“What you don’t want is to go home feeling sorry for yourself, thinking there’s nothing else you can do. There will always be something out there. It may not be your first choice. Then the question becomes: how do you develop it to be as good as, or better than, the first choice? Life is like that. And if you fail and there’s no other option, you learn from it and move on.

“I’ve told my staff this many times: everyone will fail. Everyone. You can’t say you’ll never have failures. The important thing is that when you fail, you learn how to stand up, learn from it, and move forward. That’s the trick.

“For me, there are three things: first, hard work. Second, you have to be creative because there’s never only one solution. And third, you leave something on the table for everyone. It can’t be a one-way street.

“That’s what my Chinese friends in Hong Kong always say: leave something on the table for the other side. Be fair. Otherwise, you may do one deal, but people will say, ‘This guy takes everything.’ And you won’t be able to do another deal, but be tough. Be tough.

“When you’re negotiating, don’t just give things away. I always tell my people that. You make an offer, and the other side says, ‘No, it’s too low. Give me a better offer.’ I say, no, don’t negotiate against yourself. You tell him, ‘Okay, if you think my offer is too low, tell me what you want.’ Let him say it. Because if you say, ‘Okay, I’ll give you another offer,’ you’re negotiating against yourself. You ask him what he wants, and then you start negotiating. I think I learned that from my friends in Hong Kong.”

Henry Ong, RFP, is an entrepreneur, financial planning advocate and business advisor. Email Henry for business advice [email protected] or follow him on Twitter @henryong888