This was a great read and definitely fits into something that regularly crosses my mind: “what you say is incorrect but it will take a lot of time and energy to

This was a great read and definitely fits into something that regularly crosses my mind: “what you say is incorrect but it will take a lot of time and energy to explain why.” The length of this article definitely proves this point! Just to nitpick (and not detract from the article) this point: > Once you have less skin in the game, it is easier to make bad decisions. The author argues this is due to a) having a capital buffer to cushion you, and b) having more time to waste. I actually don’t think this holds true. It’s possible to make bad decisions BECAUSE you have skin in the game. Would you take a 60% bet if the downside was losing your home? Would you do it if the cost was someone else’s home, that person owned an entire city and they’d given you that home for the express purpose of placing those bets? I saw something like this when the founders at my work promoted someone else to be CEO and, a little while after, took cash out the business (legally) with the express purpose of derisking themselves. They recognised that they weren’t able to take the necessary risks to push the business forward, so appointed a CEO with less skin in the game and reduced their own exposure. It paid off.