

It is good to have friends - swombat
http://jacquesmattheij.com/it+is+good+to+have+friends

======
grellas
The underlying theme here is that of maintaining the integrity of your
relationships and the way you do that is by maintaining your own integrity.

In any business (law included), you can, if you want, burn someone for a
short-term advantage; you can, if you want, duck responsibility when you may
have made a mistake rather than own up to it; you can, if you want, push
people around by being a jerk in order to get ahead; you can, if you want,
dissemble and deceive to put one over in a negotiation; you can, if you want,
violate trust just because it is not in a binding contract and you are not
technically bound to do something; you can, if you want, do these things and
much more of like kind, but when you do so, your name, your word, and your
integrity will ultimately become mud - and so in winning in this way, you
ultimately lose is ways that count most.

Valuing friends is another way of saying that you value integrity. When you
treat people right, you build trust and loyalty and, in business (as in life),
those intangibles can be worth far more than any reserves you might have in
your bank account. This piece, with the author's usual fine insights, is an
excellent illustration of that principle.

------
dnadolny
I find it a bit funny he says you won't be able to borrow against it, but went
on to refute that saying several of his friends made offers to lend him the
money.

Having a solid network of friends and contacts does have quantifiable effects.

------
richardburton
What's ww.com's rev model?

------
Lozzer
I've used an offset mortgage to keep a large cash reserve, but to pay off real
estate if I'm not using it.

That's for personal stuff, not sure if there are corporate options.

------
TamDenholm
I think this is an excellent example of why fiscal conservatism is a good way
to conduct business.

~~~
JacobAldridge
Fiscal conservatism has its place, depending on the business's specific risk
profile, but it's not any better a way to conduct business than taking some
financial risks.

There's a reason my mum is familiar with YouTube but not ww.com - they took
risks that Jacques elected not to.

It's not fair to say (and I note that you didn't say this, I'm just concluding
my point) that fiscal conservatism is the _better_ way to conduct business
because it would have avoided the OP's situation, any more than it's fair to
say the better way is to take financial risks because survivor bias
demonstrates it worked for YouTube.

