Look the article specifically argues against this way of thinking. Yes, you can drive close to the edge and balance FCF with aggressive growth. But this is most

Look the article specifically argues against this way of thinking. Yes, you can drive close to the edge and balance FCF with aggressive growth. But this is mostly what businesses do out of necessity. If you make shoes and sell them at a profit you need to reinvest this profit in order to get inventory to sell more shoes. Software businesses have no such constraint. Software businesses have built-in leverage that allows for superlinear growth without reinvested profits. You can plow all your money back into the business. It’s normal for silicon valley startups. But if you “reinvest” all profits for 20 years and then get disrupted and blow up you have nothing to show for all your efforts. Reinvesting profits is often just vanity and not accretive. Because businesses grow less efficient as you employ more people and that means the return on investment drops. This is why many investors only invest in businesses that consistently pay dividends. Not because the dividends themselves are so important but because management that pays dividends is more serious about running a tight ship and those businesses tend to do well in the long run.