Comments for Growth Science International, LLC http://growthsci.com Hearing true things is more important than saying smart things Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:52:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on Good to Great: good, but not great by Ryan Maxwell http://growthsci.com/blog/hello-world-2/comment-page-1/#comment-361 Ryan Maxwell Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:52:27 +0000 http://thurston.faistdesign.com/?p=1#comment-361 There are tons of potentially necessary but not sufficient causes for greatness, but that doesn't make them all that useful to discuss. Collins picked humility but could just as easily, as I've already noted, have picked any other minutia that the companies in his sample shared in common. Why humility? I'll bet all the "great" companies had receptionists and business cards and chairs and windows... why weren't they considered also "necessary but not sufficient" conditions for greatness? Collins was arbitrary. This article speaks to the only thing that matters in the real world - predictability. If it isn't predictive, frankly who cares? There are tons of potentially necessary but not sufficient causes for greatness, but that doesn’t make them all that useful to discuss. Collins picked humility but could just as easily, as I’ve already noted, have picked any other minutia that the companies in his sample shared in common. Why humility?

I’ll bet all the “great” companies had receptionists and business cards and chairs and windows… why weren’t they considered also “necessary but not sufficient” conditions for greatness? Collins was arbitrary. This article speaks to the only thing that matters in the real world – predictability. If it isn’t predictive, frankly who cares?

]]> Comment on Good to Great: good, but not great by M P Friedman http://growthsci.com/blog/hello-world-2/comment-page-1/#comment-360 M P Friedman Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:37:50 +0000 http://thurston.faistdesign.com/?p=1#comment-360 Most commentators have misrepresented the author's study. Collins did not say Level 5 Leadership causes great companies - as the author says, Collins presented L5 Leadership as a necessary but not sufficient condition for greatness. In other words, he said it was ONE of the qualities shared by the companies he identified as great by a specific standard. All this study says is that by itself L5L is not predictive, and further that it is subjective. The bigger implication of Collins is that the flashy superstar CEO does NOT build greatness by Collins definition, and nothing in this study argues against that. Note: by Collins definition, Apple does not yet qualify as a great company, so the jury must still be out on the flashy Mr Jobs. Most commentators have misrepresented the author’s study. Collins did not say Level 5 Leadership causes great companies – as the author says, Collins presented L5 Leadership as a necessary but not sufficient condition for greatness. In other words, he said it was ONE of the qualities shared by the companies he identified as great by a specific standard.

All this study says is that by itself L5L is not predictive, and further that it is subjective. The bigger implication of Collins is that the flashy superstar CEO does NOT build greatness by Collins definition, and nothing in this study argues against that. Note: by Collins definition, Apple does not yet qualify as a great company, so the jury must still be out on the flashy Mr Jobs.

]]> Comment on Revenue-Based Finance & The Cost of Capital by Patrick N. http://growthsci.com/blog/cost-of-revenue-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-352 Patrick N. Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:50:26 +0000 http://growthsci.com/?p=604#comment-352 It's good to point out how APR only matters when you know how long the investment will be and how much the payback will be in very concrete terms at the beginning. Otherwise it's a misleading indication of what the capital costs. Risk-adjusted is the true measure. It’s good to point out how APR only matters when you know how long the investment will be and how much the payback will be in very concrete terms at the beginning. Otherwise it’s a misleading indication of what the capital costs. Risk-adjusted is the true measure.

]]> Comment on Revenue-Based Finance & The Cost of Capital by Tyson http://growthsci.com/blog/cost-of-revenue-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-344 Tyson Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:01:03 +0000 http://growthsci.com/?p=604#comment-344 This cost of capital argument is persuasive, but RBF is still very hard to find. I don't know of too many investors that will do a deal this way, at least not in Florida. Would be nice if there were more, where are these funds and where do they invest? This cost of capital argument is persuasive, but RBF is still very hard to find. I don’t know of too many investors that will do a deal this way, at least not in Florida. Would be nice if there were more, where are these funds and where do they invest?

]]> Comment on Revenue-Based Finance & The Cost of Capital by AnarchyUK http://growthsci.com/blog/cost-of-revenue-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-343 AnarchyUK Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:15:31 +0000 http://growthsci.com/?p=604#comment-343 Banks are evil! :) Banks are evil! :)

]]> Comment on Revenue-Based Finance & The Cost of Capital by Gracie Chan http://growthsci.com/blog/cost-of-revenue-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-341 Gracie Chan Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:15:57 +0000 http://growthsci.com/?p=604#comment-341 Jeff may be referring to this article, also by Thomas Thurston (link below), that Jeff may not have noticed was also authored by this same Thomas Thurston of Growth Science International. Thomas's article was re-blogged at RBF central. His name are on both. Growth Science is also highlighted by the RBF Central website. Growth Science seems very professional and everything is in good form. An understandable oversight by Jeff. http://revenuebasedfinance.com/2010/08/26/revenue-based-finance-the-cost-of-capital/ Jeff may be referring to this article, also by Thomas Thurston (link below), that Jeff may not have noticed was also authored by this same Thomas Thurston of Growth Science International.

Thomas’s article was re-blogged at RBF central. His name are on both. Growth Science is also highlighted by the RBF Central website.

Growth Science seems very professional and everything is in good form. An understandable oversight by Jeff.

http://revenuebasedfinance.com/2010/08/26/revenue-based-finance-the-cost-of-capital/

]]> Comment on Revenue-Based Finance & The Cost of Capital by Francis Kennedy http://growthsci.com/blog/cost-of-revenue-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-340 Francis Kennedy Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:51:29 +0000 http://growthsci.com/?p=604#comment-340 Dear Jeff... I've been reading this blog for a while now and, respectively, there's no truth to your comment whatsoever after the first 7 words. This article has given proper ATTRIBUTION to the other article it CITES, and it is a COMMENTARY about PART of that article's narrative, with the directly quoted material properly put in QUOTATION MARKS. This is journalism. Besides, the attributed article goes in an entirely different direction and this article is completely different. It is neither a "rip off" or an "entire article" from another site. If you too care about science, perhaps you ought to examine the facts yourself. Sincerely, Francis Kennedy Dear Jeff… I’ve been reading this blog for a while now and, respectively, there’s no truth to your comment whatsoever after the first 7 words.

This article has given proper ATTRIBUTION to the other article it CITES, and it is a COMMENTARY about PART of that article’s narrative, with the directly quoted material properly put in QUOTATION MARKS.

This is journalism. Besides, the attributed article goes in an entirely different direction and this article is completely different.

It is neither a “rip off” or an “entire article” from another site. If you too care about science, perhaps you ought to examine the facts yourself.

Sincerely,

Francis Kennedy

]]> Comment on Revenue-Based Finance & The Cost of Capital by Jeff http://growthsci.com/blog/cost-of-revenue-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-339 Jeff Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:16:57 +0000 http://growthsci.com/?p=604#comment-339 You have 'science" in your blog name but rip off an entire article from another site? You have ‘science” in your blog name but rip off an entire article from another site?

]]> Comment on Revenue-Based Finance & The Cost of Capital by Allison http://growthsci.com/blog/cost-of-revenue-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-338 Allison Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:49:40 +0000 http://growthsci.com/?p=604#comment-338 Fascinating. Illuminating. A far more refreshing way to look at the cost of capital than I recall slogging through in b-school. Thanks! Fascinating. Illuminating. A far more refreshing way to look at the cost of capital than I recall slogging through in b-school. Thanks!

]]> Comment on Profit from the Core; or not. The myth of adjacencies by Adam Hartung, Chicago, IL http://growthsci.com/blog/profit-from-the-core-or-not-the-myth-of-adjacencies/comment-page-1/#comment-337 Adam Hartung, Chicago, IL Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:15:11 +0000 http://growthsci.com/?p=125#comment-337 Great article. Glad you posted link on Linked-in. I blogged this on my blog site today! Your early commenters were spot-on with observations about how important you are to challenge conventional thinking and provide clear insight into myth vs. reality http://bit.ly/cT45Qe Great article. Glad you posted link on Linked-in. I blogged this on my blog site today! Your early commenters were spot-on with observations about how important you are to challenge conventional thinking and provide clear insight into myth vs. reality http://bit.ly/cT45Qe

]]>