There are a lot of companies which manage towards being variance minimization machines, with eyes open and very intentionally.
A very small number of companies manage towards being variance understanding machines, also with eyes open and very intentionally.
There's often a mutual misunderstanding between these two types of organizations, and also the broader culture, which might consider one or the other normative.
e.g. A feature of a variance minimization company is consistent profits calculated very precisely.
Whereas a variance understanding company will often be structured as a portfolio of independent bets, and the steady state for them should probably look like it is losing a lot of money in a lot of places.
Which will predictably be characterized as imprudence and mismanagement.
Interestingly people often accuse companies in one or the other of being excessively financialized, but that's sort of like being excessively software-ized. It's a technology, and both use technology pretty heavily.
A variance minimization machine should certainly have their prudent, risk-averse managers discuss optimal capital structures and levels of leverage.
A variance understanding machine probably gets most of the leverage internally but certainly cares about capital structure.
You can follow @patio11.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Since you’re here...
... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.