As an entrepreneur and investor, which one of the following two options do you prefer and why?

Option B doesn't make sense to me , from my view with organizational complexity due to flux, diversity,complex structure...etc there is no 100% successful company , and how to evaluate sucess it is another story for instances in term of revenue and profit or equity of stakeholders shares or in term of innovation and business development  or in term in reputation and customers loyalty. There are so many facets of sucess to evaluate , even so I choose option A as if owned many businesses even might be not 100% successful but if one is dismissed the other business is survived with a bit addition to own companies  in different fields perhaps pharma, computer, or fast food industries.

Thank you for the invitation and I agree with Ms. Ghada

An entrepreneur, through a clear analysis, arrange financing and invest in productive purposes to produce goods and services  to meets needs and wants of society and in the  process also creates employment.

An investor invests his capital resources where she/he gets the highest return based on his assumed risk profile.

So, what is investment for an investor becomes financing of an entrepreneur through a financial intermediary / Banks.

 Both functions are equally important. The entrepreneurship is more rewarding in terms of scope, social service (employment creation) and visibility in the society. To diversify profile and minimize risk, I would go for option A:means owning certain percentage of several successful companies.

Thanks for inviting me .

It depends upon what  kind of growth you prefer , if  feels to keep in a specific field and grow in it then B is the best Choices. Owe % of one successful company ,consistently fallow  R&D and keep growing instead of  in different lines 

Contrary to this , if someone  makes more safer to maximized profit with strong management and  administration skill , by owing  different  companies then option A is best 

I'd go for Option A. - Own % of different successful companies because there is greater window of opportunity to earn steady dividend payments from each one of them. Since we're speaking of successful companies, risk in investment is unlikely because they are earning and have a well established reputation in consumer. These successful companies are less likely to come across circumstances to lose all its assets and equity.  Besides it's not just one successful company but several of them which means even if the other one fails then rest assured you still have your share from other companies. On the other hand, if you're lucky that all of those succeed then you'd be getting more from your investment. 

The investment decision is among the most vital a contractor or investor can take and we must approach them with great care and feeling all business.

Also, I chose the second option (B) because committed capital means running a number of risks (business risk, financial risk, human risk and commercial),

Option A to make balance of risk

It makes more financial sense to choose option A. If I were to own a percentage of one successful business and - at some point - it were to not do so well one year, I would not lose as much money as I would had I invested in several successful companies. Say I owned 25% of each of 6 companies; my risk assessments would have to include some severely accurate contingency plans in order for me not to lose all of my money in a financial downfall during a quarter or - worst case scenario - over the course of a full fiscal year. The damage to my investments would be detrimental to say the least. However, with the investment of 40% into one successful company, the overall damage I would take would be far less critical and could very well be reparable earlier on in the contingency timeline than if I were to own a percentage in numerous companies.

Choose option A because it spread risks of my investment

i am agree with Amjed Mehboob

Thanks for invitation....I endorse Experts answers